Former Metro Councilor Rex Burkholder — who departed the body this year because of term limits — hasn’t been shy in his criticisms of new parking requirements city council will take up April 4.
He testified at a meeting of the city’s Planning and Sustainability Commission earlier this month — part of a minority urging caution on any new rules.
“Are we rushing into something that we may regret?” he asked.
Now, in light of the near-daily changes that have shaped the fate of a controversial development at SE Division Street and 37th Avenue, Burkholder’s weighing in again.
“The new mayor, Charlie Hales, seems to be stampeded into responding to the concerns of a small, vocal group of protectionists, rather than supporting a deliberate, thoughtful approach to accommodating cars in the city,” Burkholder wrote on his blog today. “Particularly troubling are comments from some Councilors and one member of the Planning and Sustainable Development Commission that “real” families can’t live in housing without off-street parking.”
The debate over how the city should allow for parking with new development — and whether it should do that at all — has been building over the last year, but has reached a new fervor in the last week. After a ruling of the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals stalled the 37th Avenue project last month, Portland planners said its backers would have to apply for fresh permits to move forward. The Bureau of Development Services quietly changed it’s mind on that last week, allowing developers to simply amend a former application and avoid a public hearing.
Neighbors and city commissioners loudly took exception, and Hales’ backed off, announcing the project would need a fresh application after all.
The timing of this process is important, since it might determine whether the 81-unit building will be subject to any new parking requirements council enacts.
Rex says in his blog post “Parking is an amenity, like granite counters, that a homebuyer or renter should be able to choose, or not, depending on how much they are willing to pay for housing.”
Problem is, the buyers in buildings without any parking won’t be paying for the amenity of a parking place, but some of them *will* own cars and will indeed be parking somewhere nearby.
YAY LETS REHASH THE SAME DEBATE IN THE COMMENTS LIKE IT MATTERS TO ANYTHING YAY
MOAR GRANITE COUNTERTOPS
Yeah, the debate boils down to: Carshare, motherfuckers.
There are important process questions–like, why change a 20+ year policy because a few people are upset and why do it so fast?–but the bigger issue is what we will lose if we don’t build a city where cars are better managed? The loss of farmland, increased housing costs, more traffic: all will result if we go backwards and mandate more paving. http://bit.ly/13qN5eQ
Citizen Rex is shaping up to be a pretty cool dude. Keep it up.
Todd, what is the problem if people in apartments park on the street? The only cost is to those competing for curbside spaces who made the exact same choice. Why should people be protected from the consequence of that decision, and if so why should the cost of that protection be born exclusively by apartment residents? Why should the resident of a 500 square foot apartment be made to pay for parking so that the resident of a 3 bedroom house doesn’t have to?
Portland can do better than this.