The neighborhood group that’s been fighting a large parking-free apartment building on southeast Division was left with a bad taste in its mouth last week, when council made clear the project won’t be subject to new parking minimums.
It’s also left holding the bag on a rather large legal bill. So Richmond Neighbors for Responsible Growth is asking supporters for monetary assistance.
“Because of the many roadblocks thrown down by a wealthy developer to add complex wrinkles to this process, we are left with a hefty legal bill to pay,” reads an e-mail sent yesterday by Judah Gold-Merkel, a member of the group. “Any contribution you can make toward our legal fund is greatly appreciated.”
According to the group’s website, it expects to owe about $5,500, mainly for “legal and communications support.”
The bills stem from RNRG’s partly successful bid to change the project, an 81-unit apartment building stalled at SE Division Street and 37th. In February, the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals partly upheld a complaint from the group, resulting in a stop-work order on the project from the city.
But while the Richmond residents helped spur what look to be sure changes to the city’s zoning code—adding fervor to the emotional debate—the object of their ire will likely continue unchanged. In last week’s council hearing, commissioners declined to put proposed changes into effect immediately. That means developer Dennis Sackhoff will be able to secure a new permit before the minimums kick in.
“Council was forced to make a decision because they were coerced by a developer who threatened to sue them,” Gold-Merkel tells the Mercury. “They didn’t feel like they could risk the lawsuit.”
The amendments, which in part assign varying parking minimums to projects depending on their size, are expected to be voted into law at Wednesday’s council meeting. Whether or not commissioners will elect to enact them immediately at that point remains to be seen. Measures not voted in as emergency ordinances take effect 30 days after a vote.
“Because of the many roadblocks thrown down by a wealthy developer to add complex wrinkles to this process, we are left with a hefty legal bill to pay,”
wow pot kettle black on this one, replace wealthy developer with wealthy NIMBY neighbors and this could have been written by the developer, or any of the 81 units worth of people trying to move to division.
could you be any more one-sided and myopic in your reporting on this issue? it’s like you’re Portland’s version of Paul Constant, with a local flair.
I honestly think that some form of parking minimums MAY be the way to go on this issue, but the City will get their asses handed to them by the courts if they try to change the rules after they’ve granted a developer the go-ahead to start construction. Hale’s lost a ton of credibility on this by getting all knee-jerky.
one other thought – if you are carless do you want to pay for some other asshole to have unfettered access to a parking spot? adding parking minimums to the code make it so everyone is subsidizing the parking at every development they live in. Blabby will say that they drive anyway, but he’s wrong. there are lots of people in Portland that don’t have cars but end up paying for automobile storage anyway. is that fair?
They drive anyway. Okay sorry, 75% of them drive anyway.
This sort of thing is the reason why developers are scared of working in Portland and part of the reason why our real estate market is nuts. These good intentioned neighbors are the worst. Work with the developer and change the system, fine. Sue the developer and you are just being as bad or worse than them. This whole Sasha has me glad I don’t live in Richmond and sad that they are in my town
The address to solicit donations is a private residence owned by one of the neighbors opposing the project. According to public records, it was purchased in 2004 for $279,000 and has an estimated fair market value of $392,000 leaving them with about $110,000 of equity. At least one other neighbor affiliated with opposing the project soliciting donations has around approximately $180,000 of equity in their house.
I weep for them that they can cover their attorney fees. I hope that the Mercury swallows its pride and allows this urgent solicitation to be published word for word across all media in this city, neigh, the world.
25% is probably a little high. even 20% represents a significant cross-section of the housing market, though. and it will grow as the close-in parts of Portland continue to get denser.
Such a strange place when the “progressives” and government bureaucrats suddenly turn into libertarians crushing on capitalist real estate developers. It’s almost like you feel sorry for them. Poor, downtrodden, misunderstood developers. If only we could take away rules altogether and allow them to run roughshod through every neighborhood like a herd of buffalo working their creative destruction, we’d finally have the livable urban planning paradise we cream over. Pretty funny.
Allan, many of those neighbors have been there a long long time. They’re not in your town. You are in theirs.
It isn’t 20% of the whole housing market. It is 20% of the rental market.
“Work with the developers and change the system, fine.”
This is one of the neighborhood associations primary complaints, that the developer had no interest coming to any kind if compromise. And why would they, they paid their donated during the campaign season and they’re sure as hell going to get their money’s worth. Yeah those asshole homeowners.
“it’s like you’re Portland’s version of Paul Constant, with a local flair.”
I think this is exceptionally harsh and uncalled for.
Speaking of NIMBY…
Know that strip club called Mynt on NE Sandy?
Originally, the new owners of the property that used to be a Mexican bar / dance place wanted to change it into a Country Western Bar – but the neighbors kept complaining in meeting after meeting – and the owners got so fed up they changed into the strip club Mynt.
I found it too funny.
That having been said, I empathisize with the neighbors on this issue, though they should have considered legal expenses before running them up.
Blabby – yes. still a significant number of units. question: have you ever worked to get a project developed with Portland’s zoning code? plenty of rules there, bub. personally haven’t heard of any “progressives” pining for their removal.
sgp – maybe. but isn’t there two sides to every story? I know it’s “just” a blog, but can we at least pretend to provide something approaching balanced?
@Blabby – We’re in their town? They don’t own the street, and never did. Parking in front of your house is not a right.
I never said it was. I actually haven’t heard anyone claiming they have a “right” to park right in front of their house. I think that is a straw man argument.
My argument is that it is responsible to require developers to help mitigate the demands they put on the existing neighborhood systems. We charge them a fee for parks and sewer and other things precisely for that reason, because anyone with two neurons in their head acknowledges that new units put additional demands on those systems. The developer is keeping all the profits from these units, so he should help mitigate the parking impact. It’s not an injustice that he bear the cost – he SHOULD bear the cost.
My other argument is that it is really stupid and short-sighted to create a parking congestion problem where one doesn’t currently exist.
I think that requiring one parking spot per two units would be a reasonable requirement. It is much more common to have parking requirements for apartments then not. It isn’t some extreme policy – it’s what 99% of cities do.
It’s not a straw man argument, otherwise what would the neighbors be complaining about. If they don’t care about the space in front of their house, then what’s the problem? And, why should this developer pay to develop parking when many of those neighborhood houses didn’t? Neighbors want it both ways: they don’t have a driveway (or filled it with a chicken coop) so should have access to “their” spot, but others shouldn’t have that “right” simply because they only live in an apartment.
I heard a CoP official say that they thought about parking issues a decade ago when revisiting zoning regs but didn’t address it because developers and banks assured them that no one would _ever_ build apartment buildings without parking. Then the market changed faster than regs could keep up.
The residents in the Richmond neighborhood have experienced a windfall in property value rise due to all the new development on Division. No sympathy from me when they bite the hand that feeds them.