Let’s Talk about Gentrification

The New York Times has a love affair with Portland, but a recent article points to a dark side of Portland that the Antiplanner has commented on before: it is (as Harvard economist Edward Glaeser once put it) a “boutique city catering only to a small, highly educated elite.”

That means there isn’t much room in Portland for chronically low-income blacks. The black “ghetto,” as we called parts of Northeast Portland when I was growing up there, has been gentrified by yuppies who can’t afford homes elsewhere in the region’s urban-growth boundary. This has pushed blacks from rental housing in those neighborhoods, leaving just a scattering of blacks who owned their homes.

What is left “is not drug infested, but then you say, ‘Well, what happened to all the black people that were in this area?’ ” Margaret Solomon, a long-time black resident told the Times. “You don’t see any.” As California writer Joseph Perkins put it, “smart growth is the new Jim Crow.”

So, you low price viagra soul not take the option by searching the search engine that are marked as Spam. The vaginal secretion is the natural way of treating ailments, are a great choice which people do not have guts to go to the store with a prescription to buy a viagra prescription or else the other reason may be that there are no pharmacies close to their center. The erectile dysfunction drugs come in pills format and classified as one of your top ten most palatable foods available in the market; the most effective and widely used because it is reasonably priced than buy viagra without rx . But sexologists and sex therapists say that buy levitra uk can be useful temporarily but the long-term usage is not indicated. Portland’s solution? A “Restorative Listening Project” where white newcomers could listen to the complaints of blacks who have been pushed out and those who are left behind. The whites love it because they get to feel like they are part of some New Age reconciliation process.

Some of the blacks are not so sure. “Where’s this meeting going?” one asked the Timesarchives on the Wayback Machine (a useful source of documents no longer available on their original web sites).

Portland is not unusual. As documented by Joel Kotkin, the same thing is happening, with much greater vengeance, in the San Francisco Bay Area. It is probably also happening in Seattle. It may soon happen in Denver.

What bugs the Antiplanner is that the people in these cities, as the Times notes in its headline, call themselves “progressives,” as if this means they care about democracy and the rights of low-income families, minorities, and others to try to attain the American dream. In fact, Progressives have always been some of the most intolerant, authoritarian folks around. But more on that tomorrow.

Bookmark the permalink.

About The Antiplanner

The Antiplanner is a forester and economist with more than fifty years of experience critiquing government land-use and transportation plans.

38 Responses to Let’s Talk about Gentrification

  1. JimKarlock says:

    This has pushed blacks from rental housing in those neighborhoods, leaving just a scattering of blacks who owned their homes.
    JK: Don’t forget that property taxes on highly inflated property (due to urban growth boundary) is starting to drive out home owners, who will probably never be able to afford another home (due to taking a hit on transaction costs and the lack of cheaper houses in the area.)

    The progressives I meet on the blogs simply don’t care about hurting people. They are willing for others to pay any price to build their ideal society, complete with millionaire condos in the Pearl and North Macadam, streetcars, trendy toy trains, preserve the growth boundary and to cut CO2.

    Thanks
    JK

  2. D4P says:

    I guess Dorothy English will rest in peace knowing that land use regulations are actually increasing property values. Someone go tell Oregonians in Action they can stop with the Measure 7s and spawn thereof.

    has been gentrified by yuppies who can’t afford homes elsewhere in the region’s urban-growth boundary

    Can you present evidence that shows that these “yuppies” can’t afford homes elsewhere in the UGB, or are you just assuming that and stating it as a fact without evidence to support it?

    And you should acknowledge that UGBs have little/nothing to do with young urban professionals wanting to move to “gritty/hip/historic” close-in neighborhoods. No amount of new cookie cutter sprawl subdivisions on currently protected farm/forest lands far from downtown would prevent the kind of gentrification the article is talking about.

    Today, Oregon is just 2 percent black, and Portland is about 7 percent black.

    Huh. Higher % of blacks in Portland than in other (presumably more affordable…?) parts of Oregon.

    Though the black population has declined in some black areas, including Northeast, it has increased somewhat in the city as a whole.

    You left that part out.

    how hard it was for blacks to get home improvement loans

    Private sector!

  3. hkelly1 says:

    Yes – and the suburbs and their subdivisions that this blog champions are NEVER racially segregated. Give me a break! The cities keep people in closer proximity to one another. And as someone else pointed out, Portland has a LARGER black population than the rest of Oregon. Something in your criticism just doesn’t jive.

  4. prk166 says:

    I’m not sure the outcome would be very different without a UGB or heavy-handed zoning. That is, that with time neighborhoods will change. If it wasn’t some yuppies following in the footsteps of some urban pioneers, could it have been Chinese or southern Mexico immigrants to have pushed them out? That is, how much of the change is due to housing prices of people moving in versus a chunk of those blacks having middle and upper middle class kids that long ago moved out to the other younger cities surrounding Portland?

  5. prk166 says:

    “The cities keep people in closer proximity to one another. ” — hkelly1

    Closer but living closer doesn’t force interaction. And at least my experience from living in a few large cities is that it’s rare that they actually live together in the same neighborhood. For example, Baker in Denver is unusual in that it has a large Hispanic population and white population living in the same neighborhood. But even then more often than not it’s the whites living in the historic neighborhood with the Hispanics living on the west side next to the light industrial. How many more years before gentrification changes that? Anyway, the point being living closer doesn’t make for interaction.

  6. As I understand it, there are two components to Portland’s smart growth strategy: the first is an UGB, which limits development outside a certain area. The second is a relaxation of mandatory low-density regulations within the city. The former is obviously anti-market in that it restricts people’s ability to build on their own land. However, the latter is decidedly pro-market, in that it allows people to develop their land how they’d like (at least in terms of density). Why is it that the Antiplanner is always knocking the UGB, without giving credit to the city for giving landowners their development rights back?

  7. By the way, I suggest the Antiplanner’s readers go and read the whole article (if they can stand being on nytimes.com for more than a minute). Here’s an interesting quote:

    Portland’s black population grew significantly during World War II, when blacks surged in to work the shipyards. At the time, real estate restrictions largely confined black families to a neighborhood called Vanport. But when the Columbia River flooded 60 years ago, the residents of Vanport were dispersed, and many blacks moved to the city’s Northeast neighborhood. Freeway construction later leveled other black areas.

  8. D4P says:

    Freeway construction later leveled other black areas

    Can’t blame freeways. They’re the gateway to freedom and the American Dream for all Americans. Gotta find something else to blame.

  9. …and I’m sure the land for the highway was purchased from each individual resident of the area, at a price that both parties agreed on. (Not!)

  10. Ettinger says:

    Rationalitate: “Why is it that the Antiplanner is always knocking the UGB, without giving credit to the city for giving landowners their development rights back?”

    There are many reasons…

    One of them being that it increases the arbitrariness of government induced wealth distribution. It keeps Dorothy English poor at 160 ac minimum, while it picks those few land owners who will become billionaires overnight under high density zoning (they are already millionaires under R1 1/6ac zoning). And talking about corruption, just imagine the financial incentive to have your 160ac parcel being incorporated in the UGB and becoming high density multi-family.

    Do you like a society where a large proportion of wealth is determined this way? Great incentive for productive work, isn’t it?

    (On the mandated low density part, I tend to agree with you)

  11. johngalt says:

    I was a real estate agent in the 90’s and worked quite a bit in inner N. & NE Portland when the “gentrification” got going. Randal is right, this was a ghetto in the 80’s. Two things happened in the early 90’s that changed everything. Portland police did a good job with the gang problem AND a progressive policy had unintended consequences (what a surprise).

    Article after article dotted the papers here accusing banks of redlining and other racist policies in the area. Most banks at the time had minimum mortgage loan amount policies (usually $50,000) but the average price for a home in these areas was around $30,000 so no one could get a mortgage. This kept young families from buying the close in houses and fixing up the neighborhood so people / newspapers cried racist. Some banks (with prodding from the city government) started making portfolio mortgage loans in the area with no minimum and brave young white folk started buying from the slum lords and older minority owner-occupants. For at least a decade you could not drive down a block without seeing at least one dumpster in front of a house being fixed up. Blocks that we used to call “crack alley” had new row houses being built on the lots where the houses were torn down to cut gang activity and fresh colorful paint jobs were everywhere. Neighborhood watch groups (the new people) patrolled the streets and crime diminished slowly. The prices in the area are now as high or in some cases much higher than traditionally white and affluent west side areas.

    People didn’t move over there to save money or because they couldn’t afford a house in Milwaukie or Aloha, they moved there for the trendy craftsman style houses, the convenient close-in location and diverse neighborhood (I heard it a lot but they actually changed it quite a bit).

    Portland has a small black population (about 7%) and most lived in these areas. Now the population seems much more disbursed with many moving to outer east side neighborhoods or Clark county.

  12. One of them being that it increases the arbitrariness of government induced wealth distribution.

    So whereas once all property was regulated with mandatory limits on density, now part is freer than it was (the part within the UGB), and part is less free than it was (the part outside the UGB). Obviously one effect is more important than the other, but I’ve only seen anecdotal and theoretical arguments for trying to determine which was more important (and the conclusion was that the pro-market actions were more important). So, in the absence of real data (and even then, it’s impossible to know how the region would be developed if the land were totally free of restrictions on its use), how are you so sure that overall, the UGB takes away rights?

  13. That means there isn’t much room in Portland for chronically low-income blacks. The black “ghetto,” as we called parts of Northeast Portland when I was growing up there, has been gentrified by yuppies who can’t afford homes elsewhere in the region’s urban-growth boundary. This has pushed blacks from rental housing in those neighborhoods, leaving just a scattering of blacks who owned their homes.

    Portland has a small black population (about 7%) and most lived in these areas. Now the population seems much more disbursed with many moving to outer east side neighborhoods or Clark county.

    So, the suburbs are now too expensive for whites, so they move into the city. But the city is too expensive for blacks, so they move into the suburbs…? Something doesn’t quite add up there.

  14. Ettinger says:

    rationalitate: “…how are you so sure that overall, the UGB takes away rights?”

    So if people, under the police power, took away your house without compensation and gave it to somebody else (who BTW already owns five houses), your answer would be that no rights have been taken since the taking and the giving sum up to zero? Take from Dorothy English – give to millionaires inside the UGB – zero sum!
    You presented yourself as a free marketer not a bolshevist. And your eloquence, at least, indicates that you must be more intelligent than that.

  15. johngalt says:

    You must not be from Portland RL, when I said outer East Side, I am talking about INSIDE Portland proper but East of 82nd avenue, not the suburbs.

  16. So if people, under the police power, took away your house without compensation and gave it to somebody else (who BTW already owns five houses), your answer would be that no rights have been taken since the taking and the giving sum up to zero?

    What the hell are you talking about? I thought I described quite well what the Portland model was – delineate an UGB, give those inside more development rights than they previously enjoyed, give those outside fewer development rights than they previously enjoyed. Who ever said anything about taking away someone’s house and giving it to someone else without compensation?? Is there something I’m not understanding…? Also, I would assume that, like with any land use regulations, existing structures would be grandfathered in, so no one is forced to demolish their property just because it lies outside of the UGB.

    Let me reiterate: I am not saying that UGB are a good thing, but merely stating that they have both pro-market (giving more complete rights to development within the boundary) and anti-market (taking away rights from those outside the boundary) qualities. My question to the Antiplanner (and to you, Ettinger) is, how are you so sure that on the whole, the UGB results in a net loss of welfare/development rights?

    (As a note: I consider all liberal reforms [liberal in the laissez-faire sense rather than the social democrat sense] to be an unalloyed good, so for me, welfare is synonymous with property rights and a free market.)

  17. @johngalt:

    I am indeed not from Portland – thanks for clarifying. So, the outer East Side lies within the UGB, correct?

  18. Ettinger says:

    Rationalitate: “What the hell are you talking about? I thought I described quite well what the Portland model was – delineate an UGB, give those inside more development rights than they previously enjoyed, give those outside fewer development rights than they previously enjoyed. Who ever said anything about taking away someone’s house and giving it to someone else without compensation?? Is there something I’m not understanding…? Also, I would assume that, like with any land use regulations, existing structures would be grandfathered in, so no one is forced to demolish their property just because it lies outside of the UGB.”

    I believe most readers would interpret my comment as a close analogy. There is actually not much difference in terms of property rights. Houses are property rights that have been exercised, while development rights have not yet been exercised. Think of the state nationalizing your stock shares vs. your stock options.

    So you probably do understand but your last comment tells me that you are not interested in meaningful conversation. Let’s leave it for now. – we’ll try some other time.

  19. Lorianne says:

    I’m sorry, but 7% black is NOT ‘diversity’. The entire NW is not ‘diverse’ w/r/t blacks and never was.

    If Portlanders or anyone else desire ‘diversity’ they should move to Southern states, D.C., Detroit, etc.

    Either that or offer incentives to blacks (and other non-white ethnic groups) to live/work in the NW until an acceptable level of ‘diversity’ is achieved. I doubt that will happen. I doubt anyone really wants ‘diversity’ enough to provide those incentives.

    By, the way, I lived in NE Portland and saw the gentrification first hand and profitted from it. Whites I met gave lip service to ‘diversity’ but what they really wanted was to snap up the close-in real estate, either to live there or to develop to sell for a profit … which is what I did.

  20. D4P says:

    Whites I met gave lip service to ‘diversity’ but what they really wanted was to snap up the close-in real estate

    So you’re saying new housing outside the current UGB wouldn’t stop whites from “gentrifying” the black neighborhoods?

  21. Lorianne says:

    No, not at all. I’m saying close-in housing is desirable and worth more $$$ than new housing outside the UGB, diversity be damned. That’s the way it works.

    It’s happening in San Fran and, well everywhere, really.

    The article posted was supposedly about concern over gentrification but it was rubbish. There is no concern about it (despite lip service to the contrary) … valuable property will go to the highest bidder.

    So-called ‘close-in’ property is a hot commodity, with or without a UGB.

  22. D4P says:

    So-called ‘close-in’ property is a hot commodity, with or without a UGB.

    That’s my point. The Antiplanner is trying to blame gentrification in Portland on Portland/planning/boutiquiness/lack of affordable housing/whatever sticks, apparently ignoring the preference that “yuppies” have for the kind of neighborhoods that are being gentrified.

    The Antiplanner would apparently have us believe that if these yuppies could afford housing elsewhere (i.e. if the UGB were expanded/abolished and new subdivisions were built), the yuppies would choose to live in the new subdivisions instead of the older neighborhoods.

  23. Lorianne says:

    Yes, I understand that’s what he’s saying. I think he’s wrong. Isn’t he from Portland? If so, he must know that close-in neighborhoods are not affordable for lower earning people, even middle class people nowdays.

    And it’s the same everywhere. The phrase “drive until you qualify” means that the less you earn, the farther out from the city center you are ECONOMICALLY forced to buy.

    However, I would argue that with a UGB, the poor are squeezed out of both places … economically out of the close in older neighborhoods and by planning regulations out of potentially less expensive suburbs. They literally don’t have anywhere to go in such a situation.

    I keep going back to my prime example, Hawaii, where I live now. There is a UGB of sorts here called the Pacific Ocean. As the population grows, the poor have no where to live, so we have a big homeless problem and people economically forced to live on the beach in tents. However, the same would occur if it were by degree rather than by geography.

    Combine a proscribed spatial boudary (no matter how is is proscribed) with an increasing population, and viola, you get exhorbitant prices and the poor (usually minorities) left out of affordable housing, or housing at all.

    Whether the boundary is geographic or political, the result is the same …. the poor lose options.

    Portland is no shining example of what to do about the problem of housing those of lesser financial means. The UGB doesn’t help, but neither does not coming up with other options for providing housing for an increasing population, many of whom can’t afford $400,000 bungalows close to the city and mass transit lines.

    Portland is hypocritical. It may be a good model of planning on some levels, but it does no better than many other cities with or without UGBs w/r/t gentrification, lack of affordable housing etc.

    I’ve lived close-in, walkable, Portland. It’s fantastic !!! … if you have money. Hey … just like anywhere else. Portland isn’t special at all in that regard.

  24. Dan says:

    I did my grad work at UW & then practiced outside of Seattle. I noticed there aren’t many non-whites in the PacNW, especially noticeable after growing up in Detroit and then just north of 8 mile.

    Front Range area is better. I’m with Lorianne.

    Anyway, this Randal argument about gentrification is a joke – someone desperate for an argument – any argument. It’s a clownish argument, but at least he’s trying. It works, apparently, with folks who want to believe.

    Gentrification happens. It has nothing to do with anything other than human nature.

    DS

  25. prk166 says:

    Rationalitate: “Why is it that the Antiplanner is always knocking the UGB, without giving credit to the city for giving landowners their development rights back?”

    –So if I bought 20 acres inside the UGB and wanted to put 4 homes on it with 5 acres lots, septic and wells, I would be allowed to do so? What would that land cost me?

    “Gentrification happens. It has nothing to do with anything other than human nature.”

    Nothing? Nothing? Surely there’s a reason why some neighborhoods in a city like Minneapolis have gentrified while others haven’t. Why have some like NE MPLS (Nicolet Island, St. Anthony, Marcy Homes) still seem to be on the rebound, even after the bubble has popped, while others like Powderhorn or Philips continue to lose they’re footing? If anything the latter 2 are just as if no more convenient to downtown since there’s no need to cross the Mississippi. Or in Denver how did Baker turn a corner but the neighborhood to it’s north with similar housing and even closer to downtown, Lincoln Park, not and still have those pesky ol’ problems of, well, people being found stabbed and shot in alley ways?

    There are a lot of reasons behind all of this, but the one of the common threads I would assert you will find is that the neighborhoods that are gentrifying have the city government (if not county and state and feds in some form) behind them. It’s not as simple as having cheap houses and being close to downtown. If that was the reason for building there, why wouldn’t it have begun a couple decades ago? Many downtowns have little if any more jobs in their CBDs than they did 20 years ago. Surely it wasn’t a couple more jobs that tipped the scales? And if it’s a matter of MSAs just getting bigger and having more people willing to put up with living in the city, than why have some neighborhoods clearly turned the corner while others look like this last boom may have been their last chance at gentrification for another 20 years?

  26. foxmarks says:

    Nice to see the usual squad of dimwits spearing their strawmen.

    AP did not post an opinion about gentrification. Actually, if y’all could read through your own colons, you might have seen these words before:

    “What bugs the Antiplanner is that the people in these cities, as the Times notes in its headline, call themselves “progressives,” as if this means they care about democracy and the rights of low-income families, minorities, and others to try to attain the American dream. In fact, Progressives have always been some of the most intolerant, authoritarian folks around.”

    So, blah blah, low density is bad, blah, blah is really nowhere near the topic of the thread. It seems the point is that the growth boundary coerces an outcome opposed to the professed values of those who impose it. The planners are either morons or liars.

  27. Dan says:

    why have some neighborhoods clearly turned the corner while others look like this last boom may have been their last chance at gentrification for another 20 years?

    Last week in one of those long comment threads I linked to a paper** that helps get at the answer. It has to do with amenity-seeking and proximity to jobs – I can’t get to it today, but another link I provided last week had detailed breakdowns of commute times, and nationally just over 50% of jobs are in the ‘Central City’. Meaning so there are no new jobs, but there are plenty of extant jobs. Not trying to be blunt, but argument from ignorance doesn’t usually carry a lot of force. Finding out why a phenomenon happens is the first key to making decent policy choices.

    DS

    ** The footnote was designed to point out the flaws in the argumentation on this site.

  28. I believe most readers would interpret my comment as a close analogy

    But it’s not. Why do we have to use analogies when we can just call it what it is, like I did numerous times? Instead of realizing that I understand perfectly well what an UGB, you twisted my words and made it out like I was saying something that I obviously wasn’t. For example, you said “your answer would be that no rights have been taken.” However, I think it’s quite obvious that I acknowledged that the UGB took away some people’s rights when I said “now part is freer than it was (the part within the UGB), and part is less free than it was (the part outside the UGB).” So why do you continue to misrepresent my positions? I’ve said over and over that the UGB has liberalizing parts and anti-liberal parts, and all I’m asking is that the Antiplanner acknowledge that half of the UGB plan would actually give development rights to people who before didn’t have them (those within the UGB). And since the Antiplanner ostensibly favors property rights and disagrees with land use regulations limiting what people can do with their property, you’d think he would favor this portion of the plan. It’s incredibly ironic that you’re telling me that I’m “not interested in meaningful conversation” when you’re the one who keeps accusing me of saying things that I’ve never said. How can we have a meaningful conversation if you’re arguing against positions that I don’t even hold??

    So if I bought 20 acres inside the UGB and wanted to put 4 homes on it with 5 acres lots, septic and wells, I would be allowed to do so? What would that land cost me?

    NO! You wouldn’t! When have I denied that? Can you please quote me? Quote the part where I said that everybody wins. Because I’m pretty damn sure I never said that – all I said is that the Antiplanner, if he really wants to accurately relay what’s happening in Portland, ought to discuss the good (the people within the UGB getting more rights to develop their property than they had under the system before), and not just the bad (the lesser rights of those outside the boundary). Of course he ought to discuss the bad, but it’s just bizarre that he constantly mentions the bad without ever mentioning the pro-property rights aspect to the project, when there definitely are things about the plan that are way more market-friendly than the situation beforehand. It makes me think that perhaps he doesn’t agree with any of the plan, and actually thinks that those within the UGB ought to have continued to have their rights curtailed. Do you disagree with me that the UGB gives some developers more development rights (namely, areas within the UGB)? Because if you do, then you misunderstand what an UGB is.

  29. So, blah blah, low density is bad, blah, blah is really nowhere near the topic of the thread.

    No, I think the actual arguments is that mandatory low density is bad. The fact that you don’t get this tells me that I haven’t harped on it enough. Furthermore, it’s very relevant: before the UGB, the parts within the boundary had mandatory low density regulations. The point of an UGB is twofold: it repeals many regulations for those within the boundary (a good thing, right?), while imposition additional restrictions on those outside the boundary (a bad thing, I think we all agree). What I was saying is that it’s lying-by-omission to only mention the parts of the plan that you disagree with, while leaving out the parts of the plan that actually expand property rights. So, yeah, mandatory low density is very much relevant in this discussion.

    It seems the point is that the growth boundary coerces an outcome opposed to the professed values of those who impose it.

    That’s true for areas outside of the boundary, but the opposite is true for areas inside the boundary. Also, it’s bizarre that you’d recognize this when it comes to UGB, but be so dismissive when someone makes the argument that mandatory low density (a form of, dare I say, planning?? is a form of illegitimate coercion.

  30. Ettinger says:

    Retionalitate, don’t you think that the property rights given to those inside the UGB are to a large extent the very rights that were taken away from those outside the UGB? Total demand for dwellings is finite. So essentially Portland planners take property rights from outside the UGB and give those same property rights to those inside the UGB.

    But is it relly that much of a secret that this is indeed the stated goal of the Portland school of planners: to redirect development that would otherwise occur outside the UGB inside the UGB?

    It’s as if government, or a majority, by decree imposed that companies east of the Missisipi cannot service more than 10 customers while companies west of the Missisippi can have up to 1000 customers. If wealth is to be allocated by government decree then perhaps it may be better if the limit is set to 10 customers across the board. Planners (Progressives to refer to the next post) justify that on the premise that prevailing opinion about what constitutes good for the majority, takes precedence over individual rights. I don’t!

  31. prk166 says:

    So if I bought 20 acres inside the UGB and wanted to put 4 homes on it with 5 acres lots, septic and wells, I would be allowed to do so? What would that land cost me?

    “NO! You wouldn’t! When have I denied that? Can you please quote me? Quote the part where I said that everybody wins. Because I’m pretty damn sure I never said that – all I said is that the Antiplanner, if he really wants to accurately relay what’s happening in Portland, ought to discuss the good (the people within the UGB getting more rights to develop their property than they had under the system before), ”

    You haven’t denied it. I’m just not seeing how my inability to do this withing in the UGB is leading to “more” rights. In fact, even within the UGB, I most likely wouldn’t be able to put put a 20 story high rise on that land.

    Your point that there is history before UGB’s is correct. And yes, minimal lot sizes and other such restrictions are a form of planning that does take away from rights. But I don’t get why you try taking it one further and say there are more rights. I just don’t see how there are more thanks to UGB’s. Especially when TIFFs and other subsidies for TODs seem to go hand and hand with UGB’s.

  32. Retionalitate, don’t you think that the property rights given to those inside the UGB are to a large extent the very rights that were taken away from those outside the UGB?

    This isn’t a good way of thinking of it. Unlike physical goods, “development rights” are artificial creations, and there is no actual limit on the supply. The government could, in half a second, decide that everybody has the right to do whatever they want to their property, or they could restrict anyone from doing anything to their property. It’s not a matter of taking from someone and giving that same right to someone else – you don’t have to take rights from one person to give to another.

    Total demand for dwellings is finite.

    Demand is finite, but property rights need not be. There is no reason why the government couldn’t give rights to everyone to do whatever they want on their own property.

    But is it relly that much of a secret that this is indeed the stated goal of the Portland school of planners: to redirect development that would otherwise occur outside the UGB inside the UGB?

    That’s without a doubt what they seek to do. However, just because that’s what they’re trying to do doesn’t make every aspect of their plan anti-property rights. You need to have some nuance when you look at things like this.

    I’m just not seeing how my inability to do this withing in the UGB is leading to “more” rights.

    Before, you didn’t have the right to build densely within the UGB. After, you do have the right. Before, you had x amount of rights. After, you have x+n amount of rights. x+n > x, ergo, more rights!

    In fact, even within the UGB, I most likely wouldn’t be able to put put a 20 story high rise on that land.

    Probably true. The rights afforded to those within the UGB aren’t complete, but they sure are better than they were before the UGB. This is one of the (many) reasons why I’d never support an UGB. However, that doesn’t stop me from recognizing the positive (in terms of property rights) aspects of the plan.

    I just don’t see how there are more thanks to UGB’s.

    The net effect is literally impossible to calculate, which is why I stuck to just asserting that there are some winners, and some losers. (And the winners – those who gain rights – do not necessarily gain them at the expense of those who lose the rights. There is no reason, theoretically, why the government couldn’t give you more rights without taking rights away from your neighbors.)

  33. Ettinger says:

    So when you reallocate opportunity to produce in an environment where demand is limited you are not transferring wealth from the producers that you disfavor to the ones that you favor? What does the economics book say?
    I should start giving a score to your arguments. Some I agree with, some I accept as counterarguments, some I think are bogus. The last post I would classify in the latter category.

  34. johngalt says:

    Rationalate: I am talking about inside the UGB, basically from Rockwood to Lents

    Lorianne: Portland may not be diverse at 7% black and a bit higher than that for Latino and Asian. It certainly is not diverse in political ideology. However, in the 80’s, many neighborhoods in close-in NE were probably 80-90% black.

    prk166: –”So if I bought 20 acres inside the UGB and wanted to put 4 homes on it with 5 acres lots, septic and wells, I would be allowed to do so? What would that land cost me?” —that would not be allowed in Portland. There are minimum density requirements (usually 1/2 of the maximum) in the entire region. Except for a few circumstances, lot sizes are minimum of 80 acres outside the UGB on farm or forest lands but you are not allowed to build a house on 80 acres unless you can show several years of income from the land. I think you can build on 120 acre lots.

    My point was that gentrification of inner N & NE Portland happened (or was jump-started) as an unintended consequence of do-gooder Progressives.

  35. Ettinger says:

    johngalt: “Except for a few circumstances, lot sizes are minimum of 80 acres outside the UGB on farm or forest lands but you are not allowed to build a house on 80 acres unless you can show several years of income from the land.”

    You mean not even a single house? That is, if somebody had bought 40 acres in Portand to build a house someday, then at some point his plans were planned away? Perhaps it’s worse than I thought.

  36. Lorianne says:

    My point was that gentrification of inner N & NE Portland happened (or was jump-started) as an unintended consequence of do-gooder Progressives.

    It has nothing to do with ‘do-gooders’. It has to do with PROFIT. People made a lot of money buying up cheap properties in NE Portland, fixing them up and selling them to people who wanted to live in a close-in traditional neighborhood.

    As I’ve said before, many of these homes are old, have no garages or only a 1 car detached garage, on a narrow lot of 5,000 SF … yet they command very high prices. Three to four times the price of a house of comparable size house/lot in the suburbs. Call a realtor and compare prices per square foot in NE Portland vs outer suburbs.

    This has nothing to do with the UGB. Living in traditional close-in neighborhoods is trendy, hip, and convenient to boot. So some people pay top dollar to live there. And some people are making a lot of money catering to that demand (Investers, flippers, realtors)

    It’s not about UGB, blacks or anything else. It’s about a market for a particular hot commodity.

  37. Dan says:

    It’s not about UGB, blacks or anything else. It’s about a market for a particular hot commodity.

    Perfect.

    This is the market responding to a demand – a demand for proximity to services and amenities.

    Pretending to be sad about this market demand for proximity to these things is revealing – a fraction of society doesn’t want to be dependent on their car, and they are willing to pay for it.

    Sure, gentrification has negative effects, but so do cars, and we blow off those negative effects here as if they mean nothing. So why the crocodile tears over gentrification? I mean, besides the fact that it points out that not everyone wants a big SFD and a big yard, despite the evidenceless assertions of many here.

    DS

  38. johngalt says:

    http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=121305188158262100

    Suburbs see big jump in food stamp use
    State says Portland numbers hold steady in the face of teetering economy
    BY PETER KORN
    The Portland Tribune, Jun 10, 2008,

    Further evidence that gentrification in Portland has driven low-income residents out of town comes in the form of the latest food stamp recipient numbers, which show huge increases in Hillsboro, Gresham and Clackamas County, and only a slight increase in Portland…

Leave a Reply