|
Looks like the Oregon legislature isn't going to pass that tenant protections bill http://www.portlandmercury.com/blogtown/2017/07/05/19141318/new-tenant-protections-are-likely-to-die-in-the-oregon-senate
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 03:03 |
|
|
anthonypants posted:Why do you believe zoning is a bogeyman? Zoning can be changed very easily for developers. It was only a few years ago that Seattle had to change the laws to allow quote:Seattle Mayor Ed Murray said Wednesday he’ll no longer seek to allow more types of housing in the city’s single-family zones, after all. Like, particularly when you factor in school district boundaries, keeping large minimum lot sizes is pretty obviously exclusionary. It's part of a culture of people keeping away the poors. I really don't see how anyone can consider themselves progressive and still support that. quote:Portland frequently waives developers from building parking lots, and as IM DAY DAY IRL mentioned earlier, neither the developers nor the city care if existing roads can deal with more people on them. But we can't do rent control because of zoning laws? George posted:Lack of parking should require developers to invest a meaningful portion of the money they squeeze in mass transit and bike infrastructure. This is a huge no-brainer. Cicero fucked around with this message at 22:55 on Jul 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
IM DAY DAY IRL posted:As an avid cyclist I will openly say that increased funding in bike infrastructure does very little to actually impact traffic congestion and is money better spent elsewhere. I used to work at Google in Mountain View, which has mostly standard American bad bike infrastructure with a few good multi-use trails in the area. Because Google goes all-out with supporting biking themselves with showers and bike parking at work, for those that live within 9 miles of the office, 21% bike to work. Granted, the bay area has great weather for biking and the south bay is largely flat, but that's still with mostly lovely infrastructure! quote:Funds for mass transit only work when the city actually wants to invest in a practical, sustainable, and expandable system. Investments like this make more sense when residents are likely to utilize public transit. If they continue to build $750,000 apartments in NoPo it's a pretty safe bet the new owners/tenants are unlikely to be spotted on a public bus or... ***GASP*** THE CRIME TRAIN. Force developers to incorporate logical parking solutions that meet a pre-determined criteria into their designs or refuse permits- funneling money into a blue sky public transit system will never provide enough financial (or political) support to effectively make an impact.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 23:07
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Getting rid of parking requirements is good. Portland pretty obviously does care about being able to support more people on the roads, they continually (albeit somewhat slowly) add more bike infrastructure, and the data shows that the increase in commuters Portland has seen the last several years has been almost entirely absorbed by the increase in bike mode share. Can you cite your transportation study? I don't believe this for a minute. Portland (as a metro area) has been doing this for literal decades. They built the west side tunnel out to Beaverton and never achieved the ridership increase they forecasted for. WES got built to Wilsonville and last I heard that isn't even economical with the fares they take. So I don't believe for even a minute that the net influx in commuters is even marginally offset by the number of people now cycling to work. How's that BIKETOWN project working out for Portland? About as well as San Francisco's? I flipped through a couple studies I found, around 2013-2014 which seem to suggest bicycle ridership has increased city wide just under 3% YOY, pretty steadily, while net new commuters into Portland was around 15%.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 23:08
|
|
|
Yeah I remember reading something about it on bikeportland a while back, my google searches are failing me. I'm finding other articles indicating that bike commuting is growing much more quickly than the number of commuters for other modes, but not the exact claim I remember seeing. edit: okay so I haven't been able to find that specific claim, but I did find this: https://bikeportland.org/2016/09/15/what-gas-prices-portland-bike-commuting-stays-strong-new-data-show-191430   So between the two you notice two things: 1. The number of people driving alone or with others is on a steady trend downwards. 2. The driving mode share appears to have been absorbed primarily by biking and working from home. The chart shows bike commuting rates increasing from 2% to 7%, that's 250% growth over 15 years. edit2: as for my claim that bike infra is cheap, back in 2008 the city estimated the value of its entire bikeway network at $60 million, which is basically loose change by infrastructure standards. The value of the road network is probably what, 100x that? Cicero fucked around with this message at 23:23 on Jul 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 23:10
|
|
|
While googling found another interesting chart (Multnomah County = mostly Portland, population-wise, for those who don't know): https://bikeportland.org/2016/05/17/even-in-suburban-oregon-drive-alone-trips-are-a-shrinking-share-of-new-commutes-183639 So while there was an increase in car commuters, more newcomers chose biking than driving, apparently (or existing people switched, I guess). Sad to see transit being flat, though this doesn't take into account the Orange line later opening. Sorry for posting so much, it's just weird to see people who claim to be progressive support things like parking minimums or exclusionary zoning that are very much gently caress the poor-type policies. Like, in the places that are nicer to the poor, where it's easier for them to live in the developed world, do you see the car dominance and huge minimum lot sizes everywhere like in the US? Nah, because those things gently caress over the poor. Cicero fucked around with this message at 23:52 on Jul 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 23:33
|
|
|
Cicero posted:This is an incredibly wrong, wrong statement. Bike infrastructure is INCREDIBLY cheap compared to car or good transit infrastructure, like at least an order of magnitude cheaper. For the cost of a single new rail line you could coat all of Seattle or Portland with protected bike lanes on every arterial, new bike paths, bike parking all over the place, probably bike escalators, etc. and still have money to burn. Supporting biking gives a city extremely good bang for the buck. Now obviously there are downsides to biking as well (more vulnerable to bad weather, not useful for long-distance commutes, not everyone can bike), but it's still a no-brainer because of its upsides and how cheap it is. I think this kind of employer support is necessary, and needs to be more widespread, in order to see an uptick in the number of folks commuter biking. I only work ~6 miles from home, but I don't bike because the route is hilly enough that I'll be gross and sweaty by the time I get to work. If I had a spot to clean up, I'd be 100% on the bike train. Dodging 40 minutes of traffic for a bit of exercise sounds amazing. That's not to say I'm opposed to growing Portland's bike infrastructure, but there are barriers that more public infrastructure just can't overcome.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 23:49
|
|
|
Cicero posted:While googling found another interesting chart (Multnomah County = mostly Portland, population-wise, for those who don't know):
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 23:54
|
|
|
Schwack posted:I think this kind of employer support is necessary, and needs to be more widespread, in order to see an uptick in the number of folks commuter biking. I only work ~6 miles from home, but I don't bike because the route is hilly enough that I'll be gross and sweaty by the time I get to work. If I had a spot to clean up, I'd be 100% on the bike train. Dodging 40 minutes of traffic for a bit of exercise sounds amazing. That said, 5% absolute mode share increase over 15 years is already pretty good, and that's with mostly unprotected bike lanes. There's still plenty of low-hanging fruit there, I think. Re: sweating, why not just get an electric assist bike? They're more expensive than a regular bike, but still I think you can get a decent one for $1000 or thereabouts, and they usually let you vary how much assistance you get, so you can decide how much exercise you want to do on any particular trip. We have an electric assist cargo bike and my wife loves it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 23:59
|
|
|
Cicero posted:It's part of a culture of people keeping away the poors. I really don't see how anyone can consider themselves progressive and still support that. Cicero posted:Re: sweating, why not just get an electric assist bike? They're more expensive than a regular bike, but still I think you can get a decent one for $1000 or thereabouts, and they usually let you vary how much assistance you get, so you can decide how much exercise you want to do on any particular trip. We have an electric assist cargo bike and my wife loves it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 00:01
|
|
|
Not sure why you're confused, an electric assist bike is still tremendously cheaper than a car, both to purchase and operate (heck, it's probably cheaper than a transit pass in the long run), and not everyone has significant hills involved in their commute. And said bikes are still steadily going down in price as electrified cars/bikes/skateboards/unicycles become more widespread. Like, Schwack said he wanted to get out of traffic, which means he probably already drives a car, and if he does, spending $1000 on a bike is probably not out of his budget if it can become his primary commute method. Cicero fucked around with this message at 00:06 on Jul 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 00:04
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Not sure why you're confused, an electric assist bike is still tremendously cheaper than a car, both to purchase and operate (heck, it's probably cheaper than a transit pass in the long run), and not everyone has significant hills involved in their commute. And said bikes are still steadily going down in price as electrified cars/bikes/skateboards/unicycles become more widespread. I've looked into them, but the cost drives me away. I'm sure over the course of a year or so, it would end up paying for itself in terms of deferred vehicle maintenance/fuel/etc, but it's harder to justify the lump outlay. Especially when I'm riding a hand me down bike that cost me nothing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 00:13
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Not sure why you're confused, an electric assist bike is still tremendously cheaper than a car, both to purchase and operate (heck, it's probably cheaper than a transit pass in the long run), and not everyone has significant hills involved in their commute. And said bikes are still steadily going down in price as electrified cars/bikes/skateboards/unicycles become more widespread.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 00:25
|
|
|
Are you asking me to guess or asking others to chime in? Personally, I have, at least if "commute vehicle = primary vehicle" and if bikes count as vehicles. Though I'm not sure of the point of that question.
Cicero fucked around with this message at 00:39 on Jul 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 00:27
|
|
|
IM DAY DAY IRL posted:As an avid cyclist I will openly say that increased funding in bike infrastructure does very little to actually impact traffic congestion and is money better spent elsewhere. Funds for mass transit only work when the city actually wants to invest in a practical, sustainable, and expandable system. Investments like this make more sense when residents are likely to utilize public transit. If they continue to build $750,000 apartments in NoPo it's a pretty safe bet the new owners/tenants are unlikely to be spotted on a public bus or... ***GASP*** THE CRIME TRAIN. Force developers to incorporate logical parking solutions that meet a pre-determined criteria into their designs or refuse permits- funneling money into a blue sky public transit system will never provide enough financial (or political) support to effectively make an impact. The point isn't that those tenants will magically start using public transport, bikes, et al. The point is that instead of being a net drain on a strained infrastructure they'll be supporting those who already do. Like, your point is literally "don't invest in bikes and mass transit because the peanuts we invest in them now aren't giving us world-class accessibility". I definitely already noticed that, and the answer is never going to be more parking spaces.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 00:32
|
|
|
call to action posted:Anyone who thinks a tax levied on non-citizens is automatically "racist" is a moron I'd love to hear a defense of a 'foreign investment' tax vs. vacancy tax. I don't think it is possible without going into  territory though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 02:29
|
|
|
wouldn't a non-citizen tax hit illegal immigrants pretty hard?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 02:43
|
|
|
GodFish posted:wouldn't a non-citizen tax hit illegal immigrants pretty hard? A foreign investment tax is supposed to target rich people from other countries(read: the Chinese!) that park money overseas in real estate. As a workable tax it would be extremely easy to bypass(Mr. Chu hires American company to buy properties, no more tax, whoops), and bizarrely targeted. As there is no reason to target rich foreigners while leaving rich Americans that are doing the same thing alone.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 02:48
|
|
|
For all the parking problems my employer faces, they are absolute poo poo about biking to work. Almost no where to lock your bike up, no facilities for showering that I know of and you're not allowed to bike inside the factory despite use of high viz jackets/lighting/bells despite all the crane guys using bikes to get around. But they're so quick to tell us that we need to find new solutions. Christ.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 02:54
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Anyone who doesn't understand why this is racist is probably a racist. It's not racist, sorry bud Cicero posted:Sorry for posting so much, it's just weird to see people who claim to be progressive support things like parking minimums or exclusionary zoning that are very much gently caress the poor-type policies. Like, in the places that are nicer to the poor, where it's easier for them to live in the developed world, do you see the car dominance and huge minimum lot sizes everywhere like in the US? Nah, because those things gently caress over the poor. Everywhere I've ever lived, the poor thank god for cheap and available parking because the yuppies bought everything near work
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 03:03
|
|
|
call to action posted:It's not racist, sorry bud Peachfart posted:I'd love to hear a defense of a 'foreign investment' tax vs. vacancy tax. Still waiting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 03:10
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:For all the parking problems my employer faces, they are absolute poo poo about biking to work. Since I no longer work there, I'm free to poo poo talk to add on: their public transportation options blow, and there isn't even a bus from some of the major transit stations nearby. It's hard to find groups that are okay with virtual work for support functions. But they're quick to blame the city for capping their parking!
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 03:12
|
|
|
Peachfart posted:Still waiting. "People that aren't American" isn't a race, it's sort of demeaning to people that experience racism to just classify literally anything as racism
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 03:18
|
|
|
call to action posted:"People that aren't American" isn't a race, it's sort of demeaning to people that experience racism to just classify literally anything as racism So you aren't defending the tax, just pulling the old "See, 'Insert Country Name Here' isn't a race, therefore I'm not racist QED" move.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 03:21
|
|
|
Peachfart posted:So you aren't defending the tax, just pulling the old "See, 'Insert Country Name Here' isn't a race, therefore I'm not racist QED" move. That and he doesn't seem bothered by the "buy a company and purchase property through that entity" loophole.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 03:35
|
|
|
Virtual work at that company is looked down on hardcore and I hate it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 03:40
|
|
|
Speaking of vacancy taxes, Vancouver property owners 'panic' to rent as vacancy tax implemented
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 04:18
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:Speaking of vacancy taxes, Vancouver property owners 'panic' to rent as vacancy tax implemented lol, oh no, the poor property owners have to actually rent out their properties
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 04:23
|
|
|
call to action posted:Everywhere I've ever lived, the poor thank god for cheap and available parking because the yuppies bought everything near work Cicero fucked around with this message at 10:15 on Jul 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 09:02
|
|
|
why not make it extremely expensive and inconvenient to own more than one residential property at a time, lowering demand and reducing prices.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 15:55
|
|
|
Doorknob Slobber posted:why not make it extremely expensive and inconvenient to own more than one residential property at a time, lowering demand and reducing prices.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 15:59
|
|
|
Cicero posted:This sounds like what Vancouver is doing, unless you want to include even places that are being rented out, which would be weird? Rentals should absolutely be included. gently caress anyone making a profit on housing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 16:25
|
|
|
Cicero posted:"Thank god the government subsidizes the interest on these massive student loans!" That's cute, but these people didn't go to college and need to drive to work to live, because they can't afford to live near work.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 16:35
|
|
|
DevNull posted:Rentals should absolutely be included. gently caress anyone making a profit on housing. So either be able to afford to buy, or gently caress you because we don't want anyone to provide you housing? Who would provide rental housing if your goal is to make doing so unprofitable?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 16:43
|
|
|
therobit posted:So either be able to afford to buy, or gently caress you because we don't want anyone to provide you housing? Who would provide rental housing if your goal is to make doing so unprofitable?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:Why would profit be the only reason to own property? Profit is the main driver of commercial and residential rental property ownership. If not for profit motive why would you invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in housing for strangers? I'll warrant you there is some nonprofit housing out there somewhere but it is scarce enough not to matter for this discussion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
apants, have you ever owned property?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 17:01
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:apants, have you ever owned property? Well he did just get his driver's license and is still working on merging so....
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
call to action posted:That's cute, but these people didn't go to college and need to drive to work to live, because they can't afford to live near work. Lots of people in other countries live in a suburb of the city where they work, and yet still have decent transit that they can utilize. That America basically forces you to drive explains why transportation costs are an unusually large part of the household budget for Americans compared to most of our developed peers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 03:03 |
|
|
therobit posted:Profit is the main driver of commercial and residential rental property ownership. If not for profit motive why would you invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in housing for strangers? I'll warrant you there is some nonprofit housing out there somewhere but it is scarce enough not to matter for this discussion. It is scarce because landlords want it to be scarce. Most people want to build their communities up, but most of those people don't have a say because of how the system is designed. Killing off an "ineffective" program that you defunded is very effective republican strategy that liberals fall into as well. Seattle democrats were happy to spend $160 million on a police bunker, but that was all of a sudden unreasonable to spend on housing. But market rate housing will fix it they cry!
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 17:13
|
|