North Portland Rising

A Fight to Save a 115-Year-Old Home from Demolition Appears Doomed


"He's not even a property owner. He's a renter with no resources, no money." Oh, yeah. I forgot; only people with money get to have feelings or opinions. Everybody else, just bend over. Finklea might not have money to invest, but he's FAR more invested in Portland and his neighborhood than Moneybags Lowry.
Bless you, Judge Finklea. Damn you to an ugly box- Lowry. Rot in density.
Wait, where is this exactly? And what is the source of Mr. Lowry's "eight, 10, 12 story apartments" quote. Because the current spate of 4 and 5 story apartments is already a goddamn shitshow.
Thank you, Shelby, for highlighting this example of the tension between preserving existing buildings and accommodating growth and change. Unlike every other state, Oregon requires owners to consent to historic designation, making it difficult for cities to inventory and proactively determine which structures are deserving of preservation and which are not. Given Portland's comprehensive plan goals, a short-term "density at all costs" argument risks unnecessarily burdening the community and the environment with long-term external costs. In this case, the delay period affords the neighborhood an opportunity to evaluate and advance laudable community goals of waste reduction, historic preservation, and citizen involvement to mitigate the impacts of the higher density development that the underlying zoning encourages and (in the absence of historic designation) the owner's property rights allow.
This happens with amazing frequency. Beautiful Portland mansions torn down around Pioneer Square in the early 20th century; whole neighborhoods razed in the 1950s/60s in South Auditorium district; old Portland homes bulldozed in 1990s NW District; and now the destruction and replacement has moved to the eastside with a fevered pitch.
Is Lowry even a Portlander? He seems to have several (dozens?) of registered LLCs that buy Porltand property. Some are registered in Porltand, others in Nevada and California. I'm willing to entertain the notion that he's not too concerned about Porltand, density, or livability. I don't know about the house, but something else here is "rotten in the inside."
It's all fun and games to villianize this developer but what's the solution? Gentrification? Urban sprawl? Just let the house slowly fall apart since these old houses are a maintenance nightmare? Pretend that a guy who owns no property and has very little money or other resources is going to buy this property or pay to move the house to a piece of unspecified land?
If enough people really cared, they could have all chipped in and fucking bought the place, fair and square.

The developer is going to build an apartment unit with little to no parking that charges something between $1200-$1800 per month for 580 square foot studios and one bedroom units. The developer will say they are marketing to young creatives who bike and ride public transportation. Wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more. The young creatives they are marketing to who can afford $1,200-$1,800 a month in rent all have cars and will park them in front of your house. You will be forced to park 4-5 blocks away from your house. Sadly that's pretty much what is happening all over. Urban sprawl is starting to sound not so bad...
Brandon - when you were interviewed by Bike Portland in December (…) you said that backers of the UNR resolution didn't object to density along our commercial corridors. The concern was supposedly about $350,000 houses being replaced with $750,000 houses that max out the zoning on single family lots. Now it seems like Restore Oregon is objecting to density increases you seemed to support last year. What's changed since then?
Oh sweet, Portland needed more wrongheaded people of breathtaking entitlement.

For years, we talked about smart growth. Dense growth. Up, not out. Encourage walking, cycling, mass transit use. Now one renter wants to save one of a jillion average old houses on the inner east side to avoid a complex that will serve 100 people and further every smart growth metric there is.

Let's cut the shit: the dispute isn't about historical preservation, it's not about preserving neighborhood integrity - it's about stereotyping every last new resident as a rich, white butthole who doesn't deserve to live there. Why don't they deserve to live there? Because they can afford to pay more rent than the last generation or two of white invaders (who have all been SO busily preserving the neighborhood's precious architectural and social fabrics for the last 10-15 years).
@maccoinnich. Last weekend, Restore Oregon held a behind-the-scenes celebratory event at an 1890 house that is being restored (with an ADU) following its relocation to a single-family zone to make way for a denser development on the house's original site. Because it was not previously designated as 'historic' (see above post), saving that house was made possible due to a delay period that allowed for a relocation plan to be executed. The example of the Rayworth House demonstrates that win-win compromises can be achieved if reasonable mitigation policies encourage otherwise viable buildings to be moved, salvaged, or incorporated into the denser development that the underlying zoning allows.
CC, so you're ok with saying everybody who's been living in N and NE (some for generations) doesn't deserve to live there now unless they want and can afford a 580sq ft studio at $1800/mo?
Colin pretty much nails it.

The property is at 2405 N. Vancouver, just south of Russell between that model railroad building and some sort of warehouse. Its directly across the street from two existing apartment buildings. One of those was built in 2013 according to, but I guess that's full of cool people fully committed to the neighborhood and the single family residence that was demolished to make way for that building wasn't historic.

I'm generally opposed to tearing shit down for the sake of something "new" and think the city can tweak some rules to preserve some relatively affordable homes in single family residential neighborhoods, but this seems like a development that makes sense from a density perspective.

Also, I bet the "historic" preservation angle could have worked if there was a plan presented to the developer at the outset to move the house in a timely fashion if preserving it was really the goal. What developer in his right mind would pass up saving on demolition costs? More flies with honey and all that.
@Stinky. The market (i.e. all the people who buy and sell residences and get to more or less make decisions about whether to occupy/rent/sell them) doesn't give a fuck what I'm OK with, so what I'm OK with doesn't matter.

I wish a Pearl penthouse was in my price range. I wish an Irvington mansion was in my price range. I wish I could have steak for the price of hamburger. I wish lots of things were affordable to me. They aren't. So I'm not entitled to own them. I don't tell myself and others that I "deserve" steak at hamburger prices, to use your word.

Renters (especially ones occupying a single family home on prime property) believing that their rent should essentially be frozen when a neighborhood's value takes off are acting out of entitlement. They could give a shit about "neighborhood fabric" in the abstract: what they really care about is that they have to move to a less convenient neighborhood and/or pay more rent. Sooner or later, we all get forced to live within our means - it's called growing the fuck up.
Portland was ruined beyond repair when MAX cut the roots of the trees on the North side of the main Library. It's only gotten much worse since then. In a good year, there's three months of decent weather, anyway. When the 9.2 hits, consider the new opportunity to rebuild the entire downtown along the lines of one, big, self contained mall, along the lines of PSU with it's skybridges and basement tunnels. Sort of like the Starship Enterprise. In fact, make the entire structure to hoover above the ground to be quake proof next time.
Nobody is entitled to on-street parking — newcomers or old-time residents. Someone who street parks in an area without a meter or a permit is literally renting land for free from the city.

Also, the property in question is adjacent to great biking facilities and a bunch of frequent transit options. It also has a WalkScore of 86. Enforcing a parking minimum for the development seems, frankly, ridiculous.
Just a quick reminder. There is likely to be numerous devastating Earthquakes all along the Pacific Rim of Fire, approximately sometime between Labor Day and Columbus Day (+/-).

Click my profile image.
Why does Finklea think people renting apartments in this new building will be any more or less "invested" in the neighborhood than he is?
Big deal.
Seems like kind of a weird egomaniacal statement by the guy that although he is a renter who lives there and is practically a pillar of the neighborhood that anyone who rents an apartment is nothing but hipster trash who will tear the neighborhood apart. Kind of makes you smile when you think about how this guy is going to get priced out of the neighborhood in a year or two because of a lack of housing supply...
"The market doesn't give a fuck" is a dumb cop-out in order to roll yer eyes at the naive lefties without having to engage any specifics about goals or methods for the city's development. Yeah, of course the market doesn't give a fuck. And that's end of discussion? As if people and governments have never in human history taken any form of action contrary to market inertia? Sure. Right. I, too, gladly accept all life's rent increases, layoffs, and service cuts with a knowing twinkle in my eye, respectfully giving props to the Galts at the helm as they grow their fortunes while I pack my belongings off to an affordable isolation pod, satisfied in the knowledge that there's no such thing as political action.
The Eliot NA needed some kind of plan (including how they'd fund) in order to get a delay. Did their plan really consist of just sending Finklea over to buy the property?
The disdain with which the developer speaks of this impassioned, motivated young man who is "just a renter with no money and no resources" is incredibly telling. Would that we all were so engaged in our community based on principles not profit.

Newsflash, Mr. Lowry - plenty of us property owners support Mr. Finklea and his efforts. Indeed, we'd be quite glad if you and your ilk with loads of money and not one iota of regard for our communities would get the hell out of our city. You are ruining it one building at a time.
@Alyse, somehow I think 54 households will be disagreeing with you in about a year.
I wonder what year Judge Finlea moved here to bask in the glory of the "old Portland" that is such a hot commodity these days. This story could probably be titled "Recent Transplant Laments the Loss of 'Authentic' Portland."
At least this young man is standing up for his neighborhood and leading the effort to keep this wonderful old home from being torn down (and large trees with it I understand). He is willing to put himself out there and take all the negativity from a lot of these comments in order to maybe have a voice and be heard. Obviously a lot of neighbors agree with him in the Eliot Neighborhood Association. He has taken it upon himself to find out the right procedure and has done it. In a Democracy, all citizens have a right to be heard and a chance to take action according to city protocol, whether or not they rent, own property, have a lot of money, have a little money, have been there for decades or a few months. I completely agree with him. I would not want that in my neighborhood either. A 54 unit apartment building will fly in the face of historic preservation. There may be another complex there already, as someone noted in the comments, but maybe no one had the guts to stand up and be heard about it and protest the way that he has done. And Mr. Lowry, I am sorry, but a community garden or other neighborhood improvements, even though nice in themselves, do not begin to lessen the blow of removing a 115 year old house which has withstood the test of time to become an iconic part of Portland history. To even suggest that this constitutes "working with" Mr. Finklea is ludicrous. It is kin to replacing a Mercedes with a go-cart. And by the way, he does not have to be a property OWNER in order to be right! Kudos to Commissioner Amanda Fritz and the Portland BDS for the appeals process.
Judge Finklea, I wish you well in your efforts.
I live in an old house in a gentrifying neighborhood. I'm pretty much surrounded by new apartment buildings with studios and 1 bdrms that rent for $1200-2600/mo. From what I've seen here, Finklea's right: these kind of 'developments' tend to attract people who are fresh out of their hometown, college, or the Bay. They live in these apartments for 6 months or a year. This is, of course, a generalization, but by and large he's right, these folks don't want to know the neighbors or say hello or pick up thir dog's shit on our boulevards. Our neighborhood has a lot of traditional events. The new apt dwellers mostly don't give a damn for the old timers' block parties and events that draw people together. There are plenty of long-time renters here in old apt buildings and houses who are desperately hanging onto the threads of that "neighborhood fabric." The churches, social clubs, and familiar faces are part of community. When you've lived here for 20 years, for 3 or 4 generations, maybe enduring hardship to do so, is it really "entitled" to want to stay in your community? Or is it maybe entitlement that allows any mofo with $500,000 to fuck up your street, your neighborhood, your home?
Thanks to everyone for your comments.

I'd like to start with a brief correction and details about the property. This house is 126 years old and built in 1889. The Albina inventory states that it was built by the hand of a skilled carpenter named Alexander McRae who was involved with other fine homes in what was the center of the original Albina township - one of the oldest parts of Portland. It is a fine example of the Italianate-Vernacular Victorian cottage style popular during the Gilded Age.

To be clear, Colin, my interest in this case has many aspects - all of equal value:
1.Historic Preservation. 2.Affordable Housing. 3.Resilient Community.
4.Native Tree Preservation. 5.Equitable Development. 6.Government Transparency.
7.Public Awareness.

I began this process by speaking to every possible neighbor surrounding the property - some home-owners, business owners, employees, many renters, and several home-less. With a consensus of 75+ people, I moved forward with the appeals process with the interests of my community at heart - with the guidance and approval of the Eliot Neighborhood Association.

I would like to note that my primary goal for the property mentioned in this article is for the creation of a non-profit Musical Instrument Library to benefit all residents of Portland - using the current accessory (studio) structure. It is my thinking that perhaps the wave of people which will soon be arriving might benefit from a local, accessible cultural resource. One which helps connect people to place. In addition, the established organization could use the house itself to provide a transitional space for the people in my neighborhood who have NO home and who need help getting back on their feet.

It should be a matter of public record that I have submitted two viable solutions to both the city and the developer for saving this house - with detailed, realistic budgets based on my conversations with two primary investors - one for the M.I.Library and one for relocation of the structure. Two prominent Oregon based organizations are willing to take ownership of the home and move it to another piece of land if necessary. Both plans only require the cooperation of the developer and are ready to be implemented before the deadline. There are people standing-by to create goodness with their money.

What this article fails to mention is that Lowry offered "help" with MY plans for a community garden in this neighborhood in exchange for looking the other way concerning the proposed demolition. This, of course, was immediately offensive to me. He made other similar offers to members of the neighborhood who stand to be severely impacted by his project.
When Lowry states that it is "rotten on the inside" he is perhaps referring to himself. (since he is currently living at the property in question) I have been inside of this house before Lowry was the owner and can testify about its condition. Though the house has lost some of its original interior detailing during a renovation in the 90's, it remains a prime candidate for restoration and re-use.

Furthermore, Lowry is not a Portlander and has a history of bad development in California and elsewhere. This is at least his 3rd time being called before a hearing in the city of Portland for troublesome plans. He is a nuisance to many communities and exemplifies the modern day snake-oil salesman. He also happens to have another crooked side business:

I believe a building shouldn’t be demolished without careful consideration of its architectural, and cultural value, environmental impact, or without exploring possibilities for re-use. I also believe that in-fill construction should be compatible with the character, style, and scale of our traditional neighborhoods.

Attached to this issue is the loss of our precious urban canopy. The trees and other native species of plants which exist in between our constructions are crucial to the populations of local and migratory birds, small mammals and, of course, the pollinators. These species have a distinct right to livable space, to habitat, and to food/water sources. The also have an important role to play in the sustainability of our city. Many of our street trees are at risk from new development and the large specimens which sit on private property are often knocked down with no consideration given to environmental impact. Portland was once called Stumptown for a reason.

Thanks for reading.
Judge D. Finklea
Lowry sounds like a shitbag but I bet that's not true of all 50 people who would be priced off of the bottom of Portland's housing market if this building isn't built. In that scenario, the 50 alleged douchebags who would move into the new building are going to move into our homes instead and we're all going to get kicked 50 slots further down Portland's housing ladder.

Fight for historic preservation if you want, but don't pretend that the result isn't hurting poor people.
This is some Grade A wind-pissing, Judge. The owner sold the house. The lot is going to be developed. Everything north of Broadway between MLK and I-5 will continue to gentrify in this way. Many people will be completely fine with it, many people will complain about it. It's not a global tragedy, it's obviously part of a cycle repeating endlessly in cities and always has winners and losers. It's how cities renew themselves, and it's invariably not pretty to the displaced.

Complain about the unfairness or collateral damage all you want, but it's not going to change anything. Power only respects power. Either get busy acquiring some to put toward your goals, or you will only have a lot of impotent whining ahead of you.
ADD: I know I sound fatalistic (and condescending!) about all this, but let me be constructive (and condescending!):
1. The battle for this neighborhood is lost. Find a new working class(ish) neighborhood to preserve.
2. Start building and strengthen the biggest coalition of home and business owners you can BEFORE the rich people decide they like that area.
3. Make sure the politicians know about your coalition and find it useful to them.
4. Get rules/laws passed that actually make it difficult for rents to rise or for homes to be partially or wholly demolished for new development.
5. You've done it, Judge! You've saved the fabric of a neighborhood!

Want to bet what happens? I bet your new neighbors are all for trees and preservation and neighborhood character.... right up until it's time to pass rules/laws that actually would restrict what they do with the property they own. You know, the property they could sell to rich folks/developers for three times what they paid for it. Get out of debt, pay for their kids college, pay for a nice retirement condo, fund their retirement, etc. I predict that before you achieve item 4, you'll have learned exactly how many people truly care about fabric that isn't green.
The city of Portland needs to get with it and start subsidizing old home renovation.
It is really odd to see several commenters on here that aren't trolling the party line of "all growth and change is bad, Portland is ruined, Fuck all newcomers and developers, how dare people do what they want with their properties" as I have been doing for the past year or so. Kind of makes me feel less useful, so thanks a lot guys! ; )

It does sound like the developer in this case is a dick, and I commend Judge for calling him out on some of this stuff and getting his name out there. I also agree that our city needs to tighten up some of its policies with regards to historic preservation, zoning standards around demolitions and what can replace them in selected areas, etc. We also can't be ignorant of the fact that we do need more apartment stock as this city continues to grow.

In this case, as Colin points out, it looks like things are too far gone, and, that spot is a prime and logical location for multi family housing. But as he also points out, this trend isn't over. Trying to get ahead of preserving currently unsold houses and buildings that deserve to be preserved by using more effective tactics is the way to go.
@Louise, no it doesn't. If anything, the city needs to encourage the construction of new homes that are energy efficient and seismically sound.
An educated and respectful clarification Judge. Sounds like this 34 year old has done his homework and cares more about the integrity of the whole picture of neighborhood, workable solutions for the good of the neighbors, art enrichment, the environment, the wildlife, the trees themselves, etc. I would venture to guess he has put more thought into this than anyone could know. There is nothing "irrational" about Mr. Finklea, Mr. Lowry. He appears to have more "gumption" about life in his little finger than a whole lot of people I know. Okay Portlanders, step up to the plate! There are people willing to help and put their money where their mouth is. The only one standing in the way seems to be Mr. Lowry. Mr. Finklea may not have enough money to buy the property outright but he has sources. If he is a "transplant" as dogglez assumes, then Portland should be glad he got there when he did. This Country was founded on transplants. And Finklea's ancestors must have had plenty of backbone and integrity! You go Judge!
"Okay Portlanders, step up to the plate!"

Stepping up to the plate in Portland means whine to your local rag. Stepping up ends at 4 when Happy Hour starts, then I gotta go see my roommate's band play.
Hey, "new house", you better watch it. You are talking shit about the mighty (self proclaimed) "Real Portlander" set. Those MoFo's are hard as hell, from what I have been told!
soooo much urban planning clickbait! all right lets beat some the traffic count for the nearest major intersection, Vancouver and Tillamook is nearly 5500 cars a day. id consider that a high density thoroughfare. if this were tucked away back in the neighborhood, then you might get some sympathy from more people. the city is doing exactly as they intended, steering multifamily development towards busy, transit served thoroughfares.
For crying out loud. In case you haven’t noticed: people are moving to Portland and there is a shortage of housing. That’s why the precious 115 yr. old house on your block is getting bulldozed and an apartment building is getting built in its place. Portland has been too busy patting itself on its back for its restaurants, food cart scene, bike-able streets, public transportation options, limited urban growth boundary, etc., to notice we aren’t any more special than most every other west coast cities. Get over it.
Signs posted in yards saying “Stop Demolishing Portland Homes” should also include “not in my backyard” or “NIMBY”. This sentiment is nothing new. Let’s close the door on the migration to our precious town! Oh, wait-right after I move here! How can you say that apartment dwellers won’t invest in the community? Won’t they be shopping in stores nearby?
Were we pissing and moaning when the new lightrail, along N. Interstate for example, and subsequent apartments and growth and desirable destinations and increased home values replaced our version of urban blight? I will argue that we were much in favor of growth back then. To argue over the style of the new modern structures is pointless. It’s also subjective and a bit elitist. One person’s quaint, historic home is another’s stodgy, old, outdated money pit. Maybe, just maybe, that precious antique house your block is the new blight.
In the end people aren't moving to "Portland" they are moving away from pretty much anyplace else in America; from cloying and insipid suburbs and cities of all sordid sorts. Some are moving toward specific types of well paying corporate jobs, with corporations that will for the short term benefit from their ability to pitch the city as livable, which it currently still is compared to lots of other places. Look at what the presence Intel has done both to Hillsboro and the traffic dynamics of the whole area. Other people move here with no real skills for the emerging new,totally corporate city and sadly will probably not be any better off than they had been. Portland is dead, long live the new Portland.
Portland isn't dead. Smaller town, 10 - 20 years ago Portland is dead. Nothing wrong with preferring to live in a small town and complaining briefly that Portland isn't that anymore.

But, at some point it is time for all of these people who supposedly hate the changes Portland has experienced in the recent past to move on...either literally or figuratively (i.e. get over it). You all are going to drive yourselves mad if you continue to live in a city where you are surrounded by bigger-city traffic, evil transplants, new development, younger & prettier apartment dwelling 20 somethings, etc.

With respect to the last point, your asses are just getting old and you are going to find young people - who are into shit that you don't understand or agree with - anywhere you go.
The land has been zoned RH since 1993 as part of the Albina Community Plan, and most of the residential around the intersection has also been zoned RH.

In that plan, the overall community basically said that this part of the corridor was the right place for multifamily residential due to its proximity to commercial corridors and transit. It's continued to say that via the planning process.

If we want comprehensive, community-based planning processes to mean anything, then we have to respect and be aware of the outcome of those processes.

(It's also part of a design overlay zone, which at a high level means that it should have design elements that fit in with the character of the neighborhood.)

It's laudable that he's taken the effort to try to line up financing to move the house. That's really the best outcome — this plot of land that's adjacent to great transit and biking facilities gets to impart its benefits to more people, and this small, historic house gets saved.

RE: destruction of trees and native species...

The reason our land use laws favor density and infill is to protect farm and forest land. This building, and buildings like it, is what increasing density in order to avoid destructive sprawl looks like.

If you think native species suffer from this development, imagine what 50 single family residences in a subdivision out on farmland in Hillsboro would do.

This is a decision Oregon made in 1973 when it passed Senate Bill 100. If you think this isn't the right decision, fine. You'll need to make a case for that though.
I was the last tenant in this home and would love to see it saved and preserved! How can the public help?!?! Please email me!
I'd also like to add that historic preservation and affordable housing are often very much at odds. Preserving old houses ends up making housing more expensive overall. Historic preservation certainly has important community value, but there is definitely an affordability tradeoff.

Dooooon't put your email and full name on the internet! good lord.
Do you hear that Portland? Give up, roll over, and submit to your economic overlords just as every other city before you has done! If history shows us anything about democracy, it's that people power has no affect on public/economic policy.

One thing is for sure, from this day forward I will now refer to Commenty Colin as "Comment Colon."
So ITR, are you saying that now 34 is old? You do not have to be "old" to appreciate history, nature, protecting the environment for the future, respect for creatures who make their homes in those old trees, and the true value of of things you, by the same token of assumption, obviously "don't understand or agree with". The door swings both ways.
I'll tell you STUPID Portlanders one more time

Cities need to stop wasting money on affordable housing that does not work as because they are just a smaller version of the same way of isolated, unsustainable, and costly life that led people to an impoverished position in the first place. Instead what I introduce is something which is simply conducive to another way of life altogether. What I call the open environment houses those most in need . No all day lines, curfews, and disrespect that is found in missions, just truly affordable places to be and to store one's stuff and have a sense of community without it being broken up by police. Every homeless situation I've been in shows me that people get along great so long as they have a decent place to sleep and their autonomy is in tact. Hundreds of missions make it work every night. Lastly it would PULL RENTAL PRICES DOWN for the surrounding area - sounds like what New York needs.
People need the freedom to disburse as is necessary in ways that do not create pressure on each other but also to congregate as needed to generate a sense of community and find safety in numbers. Cops destroying the ability to do so is what causes problems between people - yet people throw around terms like "dangerously large homeless crowds" and the irony is that they only become bad when cops start herding them like rats.
Few give credit that community is what makes the difference between a bad experience on the streets and one that can be a good thing. Neither does anyone acknowledge it is just a different way of life, that is why it is hard for some to transition back, because the standard "life in a box" that we've created is very awkward and unsatisfying.
You know what you retards won't listen so just know it is very likely that I'll be the one knocking your walls down - look for that tall scruffy one doing all the damage with a big smile on his face:)

Go ahead and keep relying on appealing to people who don't care about you and see what good that does you.
Boy, POPULATION DENSITY and the URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY sure are great ideals to to aim for, that is - obviously - till it plays out in reality.
This house really ain't that old.
Cities are always changing to meet their new needs.
Stop whining about the goals you wanted in city population density are being realized.
How long has this dude been a Portlander anyways - and where was he in this GREAT BATTLE when other streets and neighborhoods changed?
Snowlover - I didn't mention anything about appreciation for history or environmental preservation. I was simply referring to all the people decrying that "PORTLAND IS DEAD" from a cultural standpoint. Point is - every generation says this about newer trends as they get old, and miss the way things used to be. For some reason, it seems that we have a whole generation of 30 - 40 year old whiners on these message boards (referring to the merc's other articles on the topic, as well as wweeks articles such as their recent "Portland Died" articles) who think it should be different this time around, and portland should just be frozen in time at a point where they deem to be the "most cool". This point about inevitable changes in culture and demographics in general also goes for growth, rental prices, etc....
I would just like to point out that everything Michael Anderson champions doesn't work out.

1. He has predicted for years that biking will save us- while bike use stagnates.
2. He predicted that the new density would have benefits for the community- while all we see is higher rents.
3. He predicted that apartment dwellers would be less car-dependent and he is flat out wrong. All the no-parking apartments do is put a lot more cars on the street
4. Sprawl is actually increasing in the Portland metro area
5. He completely missed (and continues to miss) the long term effects of the Port of Portland Terminal 6 closing.

Smart growth sounds good until you see how developers use these policies for a cheap buck and how angry and crowded our city is getting. Follow the money, not the fairy dust.
Okay ITR, thanks for clarifying
I still miss the original Oregon Forestry Center giant log cabin. Some firebug fucking torched the sucker.……
Just curious if Comrade Finklea is one of those "young creatives" moved here about five years ago from New York or Illinois or Texas after his family offered to pay him ($3,000?$5,000) per month to stay away and never come back. Just a possibility.
Just curious, eh? Well, maybe Lane Lowry's parents pay him to stay away and that's how he can afford to buy up homes and register semi-bogus LLCs all over the Western US. Just a possibility. (Back home, they maybe call him Shady Lane. Just a possibility).
So maybe two guys not from around here trying to push their vision of how things should be on the natives. Kind of like Lewis and Clark
My Native American friends appreciated old Portland too. Because it was more affordable and they aren't rich. They live in the twenty first century just like you and I.
Of course property owners support preservation. It raises values. Any renter who opposes increased density is like a poor person supportint the Republican party. Working against their own best interests. I hope he realizes that all he will do is delay. He has no grounds to stop it. Sounds like this neighborhood is zoned for high density. Why is he trying to stop it. What an anti environmental, anti affordable housing, anti smart growth nimby asshole. He doesn't want to preserve an old house. He wants to preserve his rental situation. He is in for a rude shock when his rent goes through the roof.