COMMISSIONER STEVE Novick and emergency planners let everyone know last fall they’d be pushing harder than usual for safer, earthquake-ready Portland buildingsโshoring up, if they could, Portland’s weak building codes.
But with Novick closer than ever to getting his way on mandatory seismic retrofits for some of the city’s most vulnerable structuresโbrick apartments and other masonry buildingsโa new landlord lobby has begun pushing back with a seemingly simple request: Pay us.
The group calls itself the Heritage Bricker Housing and Jobs Coalition, or “Brickers” for short. The Brickers (they’ve registered with the state as the Masonry Building Owners of Oregon) represent roughly 25 Portland landlords who collectively own 125 seismically unsound buildings. These are mostly older brick apartmentsโwhat engineers call unreinforced masonry buildings, or URMsโand most of them are extremely likely to collapse and kill their occupants in a big earthquake.
The Brickers claim they can’t afford the high costs of retrofitsโranging from hundreds of thousands into the millionsโwithout a subsidy.
“People have the perception that everybody who owns an apartment building is filthy rich. A lot of these people owe 75 percent of the value of their buildings to the bank,” says Brickers founder Walter McMonies. “A lot of [Brickers] screamed like stuck pigs over the prospect of having to pay.”
McMonies says he organized the group soon after the Mercury first reported on Novick’s intentions last fall [“Coding for Quakes,” News, Oct 16, 2013]. A semi-retired attorney at Lane Powell, McMonies also knows firsthand about the costs involved in retrofitting: He co-owns five Portland apartment buildings, and says he’s retrofitted twoโone, partiallyโwhile he’s looking into retrofitting one more.
It’s hard to know precisely which buildings might be involved. McMonies declined the Mercury’s request to share the Brickers’ rosterโalthough he did acknowledge “there are some big boys in there who own 20 to 30 buildings.”
Beyond McMonies, state records list the board of directors for the Masonry Building Owners of Oregon as follows: Elizabeth Tilbury from Tilbury Ferguson Investment Real Estate; Jeffrey Reingold from Income Property Management; Steve Rose from Bristol Equities; and Al Solheim from AWS Real Estate.
All but Rose have contributed large checks to current city commissioners, according to state records, with Mayor Charlie Hales the only elected Portland official to receive money from each of the remaining directors. Tilbury and Reingold have also funded campaigns for Commissioner Dan Saltzman. And Solheim has given not only to Hales and Saltzman, but also to Commissioners Nick Fish and Novick.
The Brickers also have enough money to hire a lobbyist to press their case.
They had their coming-out party on June 17 during a city council work session on URMs. Gwenn Baldwin, a seasoned political hand who’s worked for Whole Foods and the Metro Multifamily Housing Association, the state’s largest landlord lobbying group, joined them that day. (Baldwin did not return calls seeking comment.)
“This is really about a financial barrier system,” Baldwin told the council, making the argument that building owners have to eat the cost of retrofits because tenants won’t pay higher rents for safety the same way they might for new appliances.
URMs are known killers in big quakesโnot just because they collapse, injuring and killing their occupants, but also because they send masonry flying and clog streets.
Since 1995, Portland code has required all URMs to undergo retrofits, provided the buildings meet certain requirements. The problem is many building owners have managed to elude the rulesโhelped by code changes in 2004 passed at the urging of cost-conscious developers.
According to numbers collected by the Portland Bureau of Development Services (BDS)โwhich is in charge of enforcing Portland’s existing, anemic codeโretrofits cost $25 to $75 a square foot. (To put this in perspective, Portland URMs measure anywhere from 5,000 to 30,000-plus square feet.)
Novick, who oversees the Portland Bureau of Emergency Management (PBEM), the lead agency pushing for a new policy, has repeatedly said successful seismic reform requires “carrots as well as sticks.” Novick, however, concedes finding the cash could be tricky.
“Ideally what we should be able to do is to make carrots available to everybody,” says Novick. “But the logic gets a little mucked up when you have a limited number of incentives to offer.”
However, the commissioner’s not willing to budge on passing something mandatory.
“Voluntary measures and educational measures have a very spotty record. Things get done when people are required to do them,” Novick says.
So what funding ideas are being tossed around?
According to PBEM’s director, Carmen Merlo, one option is working more closely with the Portland Development Commission (PDC), which found financing in the past for several Old Town/Chinatown retrofits, including the University of Oregon’s White Stag Building. Another is obtaining state financing, which would require new legislation. Merlo says nothing is set in stone yet.
Novick seems to have the mayor’s ear on seismic issues. Earlier this year, the commissioner hustled $5.5 million from the PDC’s River District for seismic retrofits. Who will get the dough is still up in the air. Unfortunately, these efforts pale next to what needs to be done.
Nearly all Portland buildingsโnot just URMsโare at risk in the event of a major earthquake. That includes wood-frame houses that aren’t attached to their foundations (or have weak foundations), brittle concrete buildings (called non-ductile concrete buildings), and even some of the city’s steel-framed high rises (normally pretty resilient, they might have weak welds). But how well any of these buildings will perform is largely conjecture. The truth is we just don’t know.
The city’s last study on URMs was in the mid-1990s, when building codes finally started reflecting our geology.
The study spotted 1,865 URMs in Portland. However, this analysis was just a “windshield” study, meaning buildings were eyeballed from the street. Their blueprints weren’t dug up to verify what, if any, seismic work had been done.
That may change. Merlo says PBEM will be submitting a funding request so she can pay a researcher to plod through records and see what’s actually been retrofitted.
(Ironically, probably the best sense of how many people live in URMs comes from McMonies, who tallied up the old city numbers in his own 2010 assessment, published in the Center for Real Estate Quarterly Journal. According to McMonies, Portland’s URMs account for 5,200 apartment units. Collectively he estimates the buildings are worth about $350 million. Yet McMonies’ numbers, like the city’s, are just educated guesses.)
Novick says he’s happy with the response he’s getting on the URM issue from the mayor and the rest of council, adding he thinks he now has the backing for a policy with “real teeth.” This is a far cry from the last time Portland politicos gathered to address the city’s easily circumvented earthquake rules.
In October 2004, city council unanimously amended Portland’s seismic code, to make it more favorable to landlords and developers. Prominent developers who complained to council about costly retrofits included Bob Ball, who built the Pearl’s luxury Wyatt Apartments, and the late Art DeMuro, who rehabbed Old Town’s White Stag Block.
“[The Brickers] think they can’t make up the costs with higher rents. So that’s a problem for them,” says Novick. “On the other hand, having buildings that will fall down and kill people when we have an earthquake is a pretty big problem, too.”

People really like classic vintage apartments, but they’re old and in decay. It can create a real money pit for the owners, so these buildings are becoming less and less investable. New construction is a safer bet, but then again we all love classic old stuff.
Good article here, lots of interesting things going on with this issue.
“A lot of these people owe 75 percent of the value of their buildings to the bank.”
Translation:
“A lot of apartment owners have no business being landlords.”
If you weren’t so deeply leveraged, this wouldn’t be an issue. It’s not Portland’s fault you are in over your head.
New construction is a safer bet, but then again we all love classic old stuff.
http://url7.me/AaqP1
Another way to look at this is: If you live in an old brick building you should be thinking about moving.
If you live anywhere *near* an old brick building, you should be actively packing.
Not all investments are sound ones, and no investor is entitled to make a profit on their investment, and yes – I guess that does need to be said somewhere, since it’s not spelled out in the article and the classist captains of real estate seem to think otherwise.
The owners of these buildings invested poorly, whether they own one building or thirty. It is interesting (not interesting at all, really) that the same moneyed interests who argue that the market controls rents, for instance, and that is why they can’t afford safety are the same folks who are resisting the argument the city is making: which is that they invested in buildings that need a lot of work to be safe, and it really isn’t anyone’s job (certainly not the city’s job) to protect them from poor investments. This is the market, this is what the market does. If you can’t afford the upgrades, then either tear down the unsafe building you own and build another one, or sell it to someone who *can* afford to either pay for the upgrades or build something safer there.
I have no sympathy for folks who bought whatever they bought as an ‘investment’ and then expect public safety as a result of their poor choices to be someone else’s responsibility. If your investment was purchased for your benefit, then care of that investment -including making it safe for the public who lives within the seismic influence zone of your investment- is your responsibility, period.
If the city offered the choice between seismic upgrades or hazard insurance in an amount adequate to cover their liability in the event of the building falling down in an earthquake (anyone tried to get earthquake insurance lately?), I’m pretty sure those ‘investors’ would quickly realize the true cost of their investment, and some of them might even act accordingly. Dare to dream.
His name is “Walter McMonies”. You couldn’t make this up.
“Waaaah, my McMonies!”
While they’re whining about cash flow problems there are people that will die ugly and messily in those old brick buildings if the Cascadia Subduction Zone fault so much as burps.
You and I subsidizing landlords is a bad idea. Landlords already have huge tax advantages because they can write off depreciation while their buildings are actually appreciating.
The biggest issue is that seismic retrofits of brick buildings may save the residents, but the structures will have to be torn down after the big earthquake. There is no seismic retrofit for a brick building that can prevent the bricks from falling into the street. The retrofit simply holds up the structure.
It’s unfortunate, but it seems we’re irrationally attached to our old buildings in this city. Sure, I think they tend to look better than the chichi Andy Warhol stacks of boxes coming up in their places, that are priced for California and East Coast money, but they’re both death traps and money pits. They need to go; so much of Portland sits on soft clay or fill that even with seismic upgrades a lot of buildings will suffer severe damage or come tumbling all the way down in a 7.5-magnitude or higher quake.
Get off your soap boxes. Demand creates supply. If people refused to live in these buildings because of the safety hazard, the landlords would be forced to retrofit or go broke. Think of it this way: Why do people still drink and smoke? For their health? No, because it feels good and looks cool. People live in these buildings to be live downtown.
Quit blaming the system and wise up. Change never occurred from a complaint (or a comment on a message board).
I’ve got a better idea: Condemnation on the basis of public safety. Fix it or face razing by the city at your expense.
The City is taking the responsible path by wanting to prepare for an earthquake that we know is coming. Should the city have to pay for this needed, but costly, regulation? No. The building owners make money from their investments, let them pay for it.
After giving this a few minutes of thought, here is a possible solution: Grandfather in the existing brick buildings to the CURRENT code, but require them to disclose to their residents that they are not built to the recommended seismic code, especially in residential buildings. Additionally, give the building owners a reasonable amount of time to develop a plan to retrofit their buildings. At the same time, charge them a fee to keep their buildings on the current standard. Take the collected fees, and use it to provide low interest loans to help pay part of the cost of upgrading. Loans, not subsidies.
For those buildings where it is more cost efficient to retrofit their buildings than it is to pay the fee, they will follow that route. For those where the fee is cheaper, let them pay that. Landlords will eventually recover their money through the higher rents we know they will charge.
But this is only a suggestion.
The point of seismic protection in any building, old or new, is not to save the structure, but rather to protect the occupants. Even in new construction it is prohibitively expensive to build to a standard that would see continued use of the building after a major seismic event.