The problem this article (and others) make is assuming that "progressive" policies are good for housing affordability. For example, the "There are limits to urban white liberalism" lament from the Community Alliance of Tenants. He's apparently upset that people don't follow through with their politics, but, as far as I can tell, there's no requirement that, in order to be liberal, you have to support specific housing policies.<p>Maybe some of your liberal friends are in favor of ACTUAL affordability, rather than a litmus test of policies that you need to support to get street cred, but don't actually do anything for housing?
A truly odd article. The posited question is whether Portland can avoid making SF's mistakes, but then it goes on to lament that Portland isn't committed to the same "progressive" housing policies that SF is (rent control, "affordable housing" minimums, stronger lease termination regulation). In fact, I don't see anywhere that SF's mistakes are even enumerated, so maybe the headline was just written by editor who wished that the writer had explored them.
"But there has been pushback on these efforts, too. Many Portlanders say they don’t want more density in their neighborhoods, that they oppose big housing complexes and in-law units in neighbors’ backyards. (There is a similar attitude evident in some San Francisco residents’ responses to that city’s housing crisis.) Some neighborhoods are actually trying to downzone to decrease density."<p>Good economy, affordable housing, NIMBYism: pick two.
As a long-time Portland resident I've seen how the city has grown. It's said Portland is a "hot destination", inspiring a continuing influx of new residents. In any case, we knew increased density was inevitable given state-wide stringent constraints on sprawl via urban growth boundaries. A building boom has been going on for some years now with little sign of abating.<p>Despite the construction happening all around, housing prices have been rising, quite a hot topic here now. There's a political problem insofar as many are convinced that elected officials didn't force developers to create the number of lower cost housing units as promised when the building projects were proposed to the city.<p>Furthermore many citizens believe that overall the governing bodies have also not looked after the interests of the community, for one thing, allowing real estate developers to do what they want regardless of effects on neighborhoods. There is also dissatisfaction with deterioration of infrastructure, massive increase in traffic congestion, demolition of historic structures, loss of small businesses and overall reduced quality of life.<p>Whether this replicates San Francisco or Seattle or not, when growth-related problems are greater than necessary there's something wrong with the process. FWIW it is an election year, I suspect the views of the electorate will be clearly rendered and overdue changes made.<p>Edit: grammar
Surely Portland won't wind up like SF.<p>First, look at a map. SF has Vancouver WA across the river. Portland itself can also expand more easily. SF is a Peninsula and so it's much harder to expand around the place.<p>Secondly, Silicon Valley is a well known global hotspot for IT. Everything else is miles behind. The pressure of all that money in the Bay Area is huge. It's worth noting that these problems were not nearly as bad during the 1980s or 1990s boom. It's only been after multiple booms that the SF real estate market broke. Portland isn't as likely to have multiple booms to the same degree.<p>Portland and Austin are certainly seeing the price of real estate going up substantially. But surely it's a sign of success and is largely a good thing, unlike the super pricey real estate of SF or Sydney of Melbourne AU, NYC or London.
probably not. The only real solutions are discouraging enough people from moving that population remains static over years, or making it super easy to build as many units as needed to cover the influx of new residents.<p>Anything else will just result in downtown portland and the nearby areas becoming unaffordable for anyone who isn't rich.
> It’s all the newcomers, some say. They’re driving prices up and they’re pushing long-time residents out.<p>Well, there has been a <i>massive</i> influx of investment [1] in the Portland housing market, driving up overall prices. While this wouldn't be happening if people didn't want to move to Portland, simply blaming it on 'Californians' seems to be a bit naive.<p>[1] <a href="http://invw.org/2015/04/17/portland-cash-housing/" rel="nofollow">http://invw.org/2015/04/17/portland-cash-housing/</a>
Not right to be squeezed out of a city you call your home but "weird people" will find/build new places hopefully.<p>I am sure there are up and rising places similar to the previous forms of SF and Portland that are kept off the radar?