News Jan 10, 2018 at 4:00 am

And Similar Policies Could Soon Spread to Other Areas

Alabaster Pizzo


The anti-car crowd & apartment owners stridently argued that new no-parking buildings would attract car free renters. I think it's fair to hold the apartment owners and the anti-car folks to that bargain. They are trying to have it both ways. I find a certain dishonesty in arguing first for no-parking apartments (because renters don't drive) and then arguing that 100% of the renters in no-parking apartments should have a permit because more drive than expected. And then pretending you were right all along when you theorized that enough renters would take transit or bike so that we don't need parking minimums.
Keep the exisiting restrictions. Of course, what will happen is that the lack of parking will cause some renters with cars to look elsewhere, thus restraining rents and helping the carless renters.
I don't see why homeowners, who presumably already have driveways/garages and thus parking, should even be eligible for parking permits. I also don't see why priority should be given to any particular building or existing type of owner or tenant. Create a bidding system for a limited number of permits based on street capacity and ideal use (i.e., if you always drive to work, you can get a lower-priced, overnight-only permit because you are leaving some street space open during the day), and then let people buy parking up to the point where it's worth it for them. As soon as it becomes too expensive, then people will look to other modes of transit, just like people will only look at housing they can afford.
Flavio, you state your position well. Your point might be the better one on different facts.

Having said that, in this particular case citizen activists and city employees and developers made these promises about how well no-parking apartments would work out. Now, they should live with their promises. The no-parking apartments are supposed to be cheaper and have mostly non-car owners.
The minute the no-parking apartments experience greater vacancies and rent concessions ,the developers freak out. They are actually being forced to deliver on somewhat affordable places for bikers and street car riders. Unless the city acts now, some real estate interests might have to accept the consequences of decisions they made.
Make the developers keep their promises. I think that the only 2 groups that actually have a lot at state are the parking activists and the owners/managers of large no-parking apartments. The average tenant is going to have to accept the risks that would come with a no-parking apartment- no parking and junkies breaking into cars. This will cause them to negotiate lower rent or move to a place with parking. I don't think there will be many renters badly hurt. If rents go down that is better for renters.
To sum up: proponents of no-parking apartments need to accept the results that they lobbied for and not force changes right away.
In reality what is being done here is to force apartment dwellers to subsidize homeowners. There isn't really a good argument for why this should be done. As long as the waitlist is short everyone should be allowed to purchase the pass at the same price, if the waitlist increases then the price should increase as well. On-street parking is a public good that the city shouldn't be giving away below market price to a few homeowners just because they have the time to go to neighborhood association meetings to advocate for a subsidy.
of course, the real issue here is the continued failings of PBOT and Mr. Saltzman. PBOT has underperformed for years with absolutely no oversight. Embarrassing.
I work in NW and there are few alternatives. There are no park and rides near NW. My commute time triples if I use public transit. Any parking in nearby NW industrial area is more susceptible to crime. The city is simply justifying their 200% permit price increase with supply and demand arguments.
"The city is simply justifying their 200% permit price increase with supply and demand arguments."

And...? That's how a public good should work. We're all paying for the streets, but a permit system means you are preventing everyone from equal access to those streets. If you want to monopolize the public street for your private vehicle storage, you should pay more.
It's not a POLICY, it's there are X amount of permits per area and if all of those have been given to residents, then there are no more to give.

Having an on street parking permit for the neighborhood in which you live is not a RIGHT. It is a practice created in cities when parking becomes so difficult that those living there make it so. Just because you are a resident somewhere, does not mean you get a parking spot. That's not how it works. That's not how any of this works. SMH.

Seriously people ENOUGH WITH THE ENTITLED ATTITUDE. IF YOU LIFE IN NW PORTLAND USE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION OR PLAY THE PARKING LOTTERY LIKE EVERYONE ELSE. Those who got there before you and have permits, well they got lucky (and it's still no guarantee of a parking spot).

I certainly never received subsidized public transportation or bike share (or car share) because I didn't own a car.

It really sickens me that people in PDX don't give a shit about homeless people, but god forbid you don't get a goddamn parking spot.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.