Last week, City Commissioner Steve Novick pulled me aside and said he was concocting a statement in advance of city council’s consideration of updates to the Climate Action Plan (which is going on as I write this).
It was a brief discussion. Novick said the broad strokes of his argument were that, sure, people get frustrated by cyclists and new developments, but bicyclists and new developments might be vital for Portland to meet its ambitious climate goals (the city wants its emissions at 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050).
I nodded and told Novick it sounded interesting. Now he’s unveiled his statement, and it’s definitely that. The lengthy piece is a doozy—particularly coming from the city’s transportation commissioner. Novick’s essential thesis: Who cares that you’re annoyed by that new apartment building and you don’t like cyclists? Those things are helping us combat the gravest threat of modern times.
[Update: Novick disagrees with my summation: It’s not “who cares that you’re annoyed” he says. It’s “yes, I know it’s annoying, but it’s for a good cause.”]
An excerpt:
I think it’s time we saw the fight against climate disruption in similar terms. I want to get to the point where some people, when they see a bicyclist getting off their bike, say: “Thank you for your service.” I want to get to the point where people say at dinner parties: “So there’s a new apartment building going in next door, and the construction’s noisy and it’ll mess with my view and it might make it harder to find a parking space. But I’m not complaining. Anything for the cause.
Bikes are always controversial in this city, and the fury over displacement and expensive new apartments has been intense lately. But Novick’s clearly correct that anything that can get people out of their cars more is going to help the city meet its very ambitious aims.
The good news is: Novick controls PBOT! Hopefully his next post is all about what he’s going to do to increase bicycle use and discourage driving.
Read the whole statement after the jump.
As the Council considers the Climate Action Plan this afternoon, I offer some observations about climate and the city.
Climate change, or, as I prefer to call it, climate disruption, is the defining issue of this century. I wish it were not true that burning fossil fuels changes the climate. But unfortunately, science tells us that this is fact. If we do not drastically reduce our fossil fuel use, we will see more and more severe weather events, leading to floods and forest fires, which will impose huge increased costs on families, businesses and governments. We will see disruption of our food supply, because, due to drought or other factors, places where we now do grow food will become places where we can’t grow food. We will see massive population displacement, as places where lots of people now live become uninhabitable – in fact Portland has already seen some migration of “climate refugees.” Furthermore, we will see the extinction of many, many species– perhaps 20%, perhaps 50%, of all the species in the world.
We in Portland have both a moral obligation and an economic imperative to take steps to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. I think people understand the moral obligation: we need to do our part to save the world. Even though what we do in Portland will not in and of itself change the course of global history, the worldwide effort will be a collection of local efforts, and we should do our part. But we also have an economic imperative. Eventually, either the world will suffer a climate catastrophe, or national governments will take drastic action to require the reduction of fossil fuel use. They might very well put a price on carbon– either directly, through taxation, or through regulation. When that happens, communities that consume lots of fossil fuels – communities where you have to drive everywhere, for example – will be very hard hit, economically. Communities that have deliberately reduced their fossil fuel use will be much better prepared to live with those new taxes or regulations.
People in Portland are aware of the threat of climate disruption, and they want to do something about it. According to the periodic “values and beliefs” surveys by the firm DHM, 79% of people in Multnomah County agree that there should be stronger government policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 88% of Portlanders agree that “climate change requires us to change our way of life.”
Every day, people in Portland deliberately choose to take steps to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. They recycle, and that helps; recycling old materials takes less energy than making entirely new stuff. They put in more efficient light bulbs. They put in more efficient furnaces. People who are aware that growing lentils takes a lot less energy than growing beef might decide to have lentil soup, instead of a hamburger, for dinner.
But I think a lot of people are not aware that one of the things they can do to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is simply to tolerate things that other people are doing that might sometimes be annoying, or inconvenient, but which serve to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
I’m thinking in particular of two of the policies that we have in Portland to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that generate a large number of complaints from the public. We have policies that encourage and accommodate bicycling, and we allow new apartment buildings to be constructed, especially along transit corridors sometimes without parking attached. The Climate Action Plan addresses bicycle infrastructure on page 75, and the role of compact growth on page 76.
Many people are irritated by the fact that we build bicycle infrastructure – either because they believe they have been inconvenienced by the addition of bike lanes, or because they think we spend too much money on bicyclists. And many people feel that the addition of new apartment buildings in their neighborhoods is both an inconvenience and an affront.
I think that we – and in saying “we,” I include myself – have made two mistakes in talking about these issues. First, I think people sometimes feel that their concerns are minimized, which makes them feel like they aren’t being heard. Second, we have not made it clear that simply by putting up with bicyclists and new apartment buildings, people can make a major contribution to the fight against climate disruption.
When it comes to people’s complaints about bicycles, we tend to say things like: “We don’t really spend very much money on bicycle infrastructure, and putting in that bike lane either isn’t increasing anyone’s commute time at all, or if it does, it’s only a minute a day.” Those statements are generally true. But a minute stuck in traffic seems like a lot, and any public expenditure should have a strong justification.
I think we need to start saying: “We know many people find it annoying to have to deal with bicyclists, and yes we do spend some money on bicycle infrastructure. But when people are on their bikes, they aren’t using gasoline. And there really are modern cities, like Copenhagen, there a third of people travel by bike, and that’s a major way they have reduced carbon emissions. If we want to meet our carbon emission goals, we are going to need to make it easier for people to bike and walk, instead of drive. So, although we will do our best to crack down on rude bicyclists who break traffic laws, we are going to continue to build bicycle infrastructure. We know many people will never ride a bike. But just by agreeing to put up with the idea of more bicycles on the road, you can still make a significant contribution to fighting climate disruption.”
When it comes to people’s complaints about new apartment buildings, we tend to say: “But wait – because those new buildings are going in, there will be enough of a market in your neighborhood for groceries and ice cream that you might get a new grocery store within walking distance, and a new Salt and Straw, too. It’ll be a 20-minute neighborhood! And trust us, you’ll still be able to find a parking spot.” But some people’s response is: “I don’t mind driving to the grocery store. And I don’t want eggplant-flavored ice cream with kale sprinkles. And if I can’t find a parking spot in front of my house ten times a year, that’s ten times too many. And despite all the talk about our great transit system, there’s a lot of places I just have to drive to.”
I think we need to say to those Portlanders: “We realize that those new apartment buildings can bring inconvenience. But adding more apartment buildings in the city is critical to reducing carbon emissions. For one thing, people in apartments tend to use less energy for heating and cooling than people in stand-alone houses. Also, when you have a lot of people in one place, grocery stores and restaurants do spring up within walking distance, and driving less is one of the keys to reducing carbon emissions. And when you have a lot of people living close together, public transit becomes more viable – a light rail line is a lot more economical if it picks up 30 people a stop instead of 5 people a stop – so even for longer trips, transit will become a better option. New York City has far lower carbon emissions than we do, and that’s largely because they take the subway everywhere, but the subway only makes sense because there’s a lot of people per stop. We know that the promise of better transit in the future doesn’t help you right now, but we’re asking you to be patient.
“And we know that you’re especially concerned about apartment buildings without parking, and we’re working on polices to mitigate the impact of those apartment buildings on parking availability. But we’re not going to require a parking space with every new apartment, because if we build the city around the idea that everyone will always drive, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. So we’re asking you to put up with those apartment buildings, as annoying as they might be, as part of your contribution to fighting climate disruption.”
We know from history that Americans are willing to sacrifice for a cause. During World War II, people put up with rationing of food and gasoline; rich people put up with incredibly high taxes. They knew the stakes were high, and they were ready to do their part.
I think it’s time we saw the fight against climate disruption in similar terms. I want to get to the point where some people, when they see a bicyclist getting off their bike, say: “Thank you for your service.” I want to get to the point where people say at dinner parties: “So there’s a new apartment building going in next door, and the construction’s noisy and it’ll mess with my view and it might make it harder to find a parking space. But I’m not complaining. Anything for the cause.”
And yes, I realize that might sound crazy. But the only way we are going to avert climate catastrophe is if a lot of things that seem crazy now become true.
Every politician daydreams about Stepford Citizens, I’d guess. Most just don’t say it out loud.
#tldr #teamnovick, but I’d like to see a mandatory allotment of affordable units in all new developments, with affordable units’ prices limited to some fixed percentage of market rate.
I’d also like the city to establish a housing authority that buys, rehabs and maintains housing expressly to be rented at affordable rates.
I’d also like a pony, while we’re at it.
I agree with Novick in general, but the details are devilish. A lot more people would ride bikes if there were more separated bike paths, lanes and streets. And density can be achieved without turning the city into 1970s East Berlin (e.g., Division St.).
So the goal is to pack everyone like sardines into dense micro-apartment highrises, make sure nobody has the option to escape the city because of the lack of vehicle ownership while trade deals ship the rest of our manufacturering base overseas to the biggest polluting countries?
Talk about polishing the brass on the Titanic.
How about we take away Novick’s car and make him ride a bike from Gresham to downtown Portland and back every day for a year? Then he can start browbeating the rest of us for not all living in hipster heaven down in the Pearl.
Novick to voters: shut up.
Voters to Novick: right back at you.
Seriously, we need to chuck this DB. He wants everyone who isn’t rich to forgo the wealth accumulation (face it- the blue collar guy accumulated wealth if he can find a reasonably priced home and stay there). Not only do we not accumulate wealth, but we stay at the mercy of the landlord class. He never mentions rent control- just density (higher buildings are more expensive). So he is making an underclass out of the middle class.
Except that people will vote with their feet and move to a nearby town with houses.
And at the end of the week we can’t even drive out of the city for some shade.
Why won’t someone well-known and respected step up and challenge Novick?
I guess it’s not surprising that some Portlanders fault Novick for living in the Hipster Pearl (which he doesn’t), forget that there is a Max train that runs frequently to Gresham, expect the transportation director to have control over landlords, and blame Novick for China’s infatuation with coal powered power plants. Expectations are high in Portland. Next, he’ll be blamed for the unprecedented heat wave.
CC, in theory I think that is what the housing bureau is supposed to be doing. I think we could use more clarity on how they spend their money, prioritize among different types of investments, etc.
We also have a federal Housing Authority which changed it’s name to Home Forward which owns public housing and administers the Section 8 program.
My problem with the density thing is that most people don’t want to live in multi-family housing past a certain age (yes, I know that some do). But when the council and senior planners, most of whom live in houses in single-family neighborhoods, start talking about density, it has a very “good for thee, but not for me” flavor to it.
The churlish, infantile comments on this blog are what’s truly delusional. The reactionary comments about being forced to live chock-a-block with no escape from the city are simply juvenile. In the real world — and like or not, Portland is in the real world — close-in real estate grows in value, making higher density housing both necessary and profitable. If you don’t like the way the market works in Portland, go find a place where the market is preserving single-family houses in the center city — how about Detroit?
If you don’t like coal-generated electricity, how about solar-powering everything in Portland? That’s sure to work! Make Novick ride a bike in from Gresham? Why would he, when there’s Max service from Gresham? Besides which, Novick doesn’t live in Gresham — and he doesn’t live in the Pearl, either.
As someone who commutes by bicycle and has done so for decades, I know that not everyone can commute or shop with a bicycle, and Novick should underscore that he understands bicycles alone won’t solve the automobile problem. I would support some sort of a reasonable bicycle licensing plan to help defray the costs of those costly bits of paint for bike lanes and to get the haters off our backs. But as for the haters whose day is ruined because they have to share the space with other people — just get over yourselves.
In my view, rather than pointing out the potential negatives of apartment/condo developments, Novick should put a positive spin on what’s happening. What the infantile snarks commenting on this blog don’t like is hearing the truth; unfortunately for Novick, he’s not afraid to speak the truth. It may get him in trouble with the trolls, but the truth remains, whether or not Novick speaks it.
And if you don’t believe that bicycles can make a difference, go stand on the Broadway or Hawthorne bridge from 7:30-8:30 some weekday morning as I did a few years ago, and count the number of riders coming in to their jobs. It in the hundreds — conservative recollection: 400 bikes. That means 400 cars not on the road, every morning, every evening. Not a huge amount of carbon emissions, but a healthy bite out of traffic congestion.
The numbers are a lot higher than that. Nearly 5 million people on bikes have crossed the Hawthorne bridge alone since August 2012. Over 7,000 a day during the summer. All the counts:
http://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportati…
More or less what we’d have to do without people biking: 23 more Powell Blvds
http://bikeportland.org/2014/02/24/editori…
Sightline Institute estimates that the quantity of fossil fuels slated for export from the NW, if all new proposed facilities are realized, will dwarf the Keystone XL Pipeline project and push us over the point of no return toward runaway heating: http://www.sightline.org/research/northwest-fossil-fuel-exports-2/.
The most significant thing that Portland could do right now on climate would be to ban new fossil fuel export, transfer, and storage infrastructure to set a precedent that could resonate throughout the region. By chance, the Pacific Northwest is in a position to change the future of the planet if we can stop the expansion of the dirty fossil fuel industry.
In Portland, an increase in density has to be accompanied by strong protections for renters and existing residents, lest we build a green city where only wealthy people can afford to live. So far, those protections are nowhere to be seen.
“In Portland, an increase in density has to be accompanied by strong protections for renters and existing residents, lest we build a green city where only wealthy people can afford to live. So far, those protections are nowhere to be seen.”
Good point Mr. Caleb- you may be winning me over.
How do you feel about AirBnB and Vacasa (and many out-of-state investors) converting residences into hotels? One of my pet peeves with the higher buildings is that I don’t want to make the tiniest sacrifice for AirBnB hosts. A map shows AirBnB clustered around popular streets that used to have renters…
Also- for a certain part of Portland, owning a small house is their best chance at building wealth and autonomy. My mortgage stays the same- and I am not at the mercy of the landlord and his choice of my neighbors (frat boys using AirBnB?).
In Novick’s future, a sizable underclass will be at the mercy of the stock market (since they can’t afford real estate) and their landlord. What do you call a renter
who loses his job in a stock market crash?
Homeless. SOL.
Novick envisions a world where my kids will raise my future gandkids in an apartment and take the kid to the doctor on a backfiet…- if they stay in PDX.
People can and will eschew Portland for nearby towns if the price of hipness is too high. Are Novick’s policies actually creating unnecessary sprawl as the working class
looks to surrounding towns for the chance at the American Dream?
What would you do to keep the dream of a modest home alive for people making 30-50k a year?
Also, did that Salt and Straw crack make your skin crawl? Portland is full of kids with food insecurity. Driving on SE 92nd this week- near Powell- I saw how those of modest means are stuck in apartments and the only things they can walk to are Chuckee Cheese, Jiffy Lube, Burger King, a gas station and two little ethnic markets. A complete neighborhood? Complete nightmare.
Novick is a dishonest hack. Raise your profile, dude! You should have been quoted in the article- not commenting.
It is very surprising to read the negative comments about Novick’s blog. I thought Portland was a progressive city with well educated and civic minded citizens. The comments, for the most part, seem at odds with that view of the city. Asking Novick to reduce China’s reliance on coal fired plants and making sure every new apartment has affordable housing is like asking Obama to solve the Israel-Palestinian conflict, eliminate GMO crops and pesticides which are killing bees, and increasing everyone’s sex appeal.
I live in Vancouver, BC, Canada, one of the most beautiful cities in North America. Guess what? We are building lots of infrastructure for bicycles, and although there was outrage about this in the past, now it is an accepted part of traffic in the city. We are also moving to much more urban density, by building apartment buildings in transit corridors, in neighborhoods where single family dwellings were once the norm.
This is the future of our cities, folks. Climate change is real, population growth is real.
Novick is “telling it like it is”. Just think about it before you rant.
Issac, Novick is a childless man with a nice e car and an expensive home in a desirable neighborhood. He is asking the next generation to give up on home ownership & wealth accumulation to make a largely symbolic gesture re; carbon emissions.
You are seeing the real Portland in these negative comments. Novick has a 40% approval rating and has failed to fix potholes. Now he is gonna fix the world. We ain’t buying it.
No one is asking Novick to fix China’s problem: that is for Obama and Congress.
Fine, and all, but if there isn’t room for the low-paid workers who’ll perform the services the posh, pampered, apartmented future urbans need, then they’ll just drive in from Gresham, Sandy, Vancouver, Oregon City … because of TriMet, not everyone’s going to be living near a MAX line or, hell, even a bus route that runs when they need it to.
Sure, Portland will be carbon neutral, though. So we got that working for us.