Sidewalks Holding Up Regional Center?


An article in this morning’s Daily Journal of Commerce suggests that figuring out how to pay for sidewalks is slowing the development of the pedestrian distract in the Gateway Regional Center.

,

14 responses to “Sidewalks Holding Up Regional Center?”

  1. Huh. I wonder if they’re considering alternative treatments for these streets, i.e. green streets with permeable sidewalks and bioswales, to eliminate runoff discharge from storms into the sewer system? This would seem to be a perfect opportunity for Portland to do a little more broad-scale showcasing of its work in these areas.

  2. Good idea, and I think Portland should do more to showcase green stormwater management.

    However, out that far east portland has a separated sewer system – Stormwater and sewage are already conveyed in separate pipes. Stormwater is typically treated in a regional detention facility before discharging to a water body, likely the Columbia Slough.

  3. One of the great ironies of Portland infrastructure funding is we require property owners to keep their sidewalks in good repair, but we don’t require them to put in sidewalks in the first place.

    Well, y’know, we don’t let developers build units without indoor plumbing. We don’t fall prey to their woeful entreaties that indoor plumbing will increase the cost of their units thus making them less affordable. We tell them…here’s what’s needed. Why should sidewalks be any different?

    We either value muti-modal transportation –along with indoor plumbing– or we don’t. Since I’m guessing these developments will get reduced Transportation System Development Charges for being in transit corridors…shouldn’t we require them to provide sidewalks to GET to transit?

    This is a no-brainer, developer whining aside.

  4. Frank –

    I believe we do actually require new developments to put in sidewalks.

    I know that my folks in Clackamas County are studying rules very carefully – they are considering adding a semi-permanent shop building to their property but to do so may require adding sidewalks which they’d rather not have to do because they’d be the only house in about 3/4 mile in either direction with a sidewalk in front.

    (That being said, if it were my house and my money, I’d have put in the sidewalks by now, if for no other reason, because it would keep the test drivers from nearby car lots from turning around in the yard and wrecking the vegetation.)

    As mentioned in the recent thread about sidewalks in SW Portland, there are some property owners who plainly want to keep gravel roads and no sidewalks in their area, and others who desperately want a clear way to upgrade.

    Perhaps what is needed is a program which combines a modest subsidy of citywide transportation funds with a means for property owners to “vote” on whether they want the upgrades or not, with the weight of their vote based on street frontage. The city subsidy would be greatest in areas where the sidewalk would complete a missing link in the network, and neighbors voting “for” a sidewalk would be assessed more for the sidewalks than those on the street voting “no”, and based on street frontage.

    A survey can be done of owners along unimproved streets, and then a priority list can be done of those projects which would complete missing links in the network, benefit the most pedestrians, and would be paid for by the most number of “yes” vote properties.

    Basically, get the easiest stuff out of the way first, and then see if people are still complaining about unimproved streets… doing a few strategic blocks in each neighborhood may solve a lot of problems.

    – Bob R.

  5. Yes, constructing sidewalks is now a required just about everytime a new building is constructed within the Portland city limits. In fact, the placement of street trees is also required with most new construction.

    The main reason why some neighborhoods have unimproved streets and no sidewalks is that these area were developed before they were annexed into the City of Portland. Multnomah County had notoriously lax development rules. When much of the area between 82nd Avenue and Gresham was annexed in the 1980’s and 90’s, sidewalks became required for the first time.

    Other areas such as the SW Hills were given sidewalk exemptions due to the steep grades and abrupt dropoffs that are so common.

  6. As mentioned in the recent thread about sidewalks in SW Portland, there are some property owners who plainly want to keep gravel roads and no sidewalks in their area…

    Too bad. There are people who don’t care if children walk in the streets and elderly folks lose their mobility. I’m not terribly impressed with their arguments or rationalizations. I’m not saying we don’t work with neighborhoods and property owners, but we also need to take a more proactive approach, and stand on principle. Portland is not an undeveloped country with no resources.

    Perhaps what is needed is a program which combines a modest subsidy of citywide transportation funds with a means for property owners to “vote” on whether they want the upgrades or not…

    Children don’t get to vote. They’re just forced into the streets to walk. We need to speak up for them and their safety. We make all kinds of noise about “handicap accessibility,” but wheelchairs don’t roll in gravel. (I wish I had my camera when I saw an elderly gent in a wheelchair rolling along Bevarton-Hillsdale, on the shoulder.)

    Besides, we have historically subsidized streets and sidewalks with General Fund support. Local Improvement Districts up until 1966 –by which time most streets and sidewalks were built– topped at out 6% for the bureau’s “engineering and superintendance” of projects. (There were years, also, when the Charter fixed it lower, and even at zero.) A vote changed the Charter and left it to City Council to set the rate (big mistake), which jumped to 10% through the 70s then it went into upward free-fall (so to speak), hitting 30-40 even close to 70%.

    Sidewalks and streets are now hugely expensive and one of the ways we were going to fix that was a “reform of the LID process” which removed the Auditor’s oversight/role in proposing assessment methodologies. The process went entirely to PDOT…which then proceeded with the Streetcars, Tram, other big projects, and except for PDC-subsidized streets and sidewalks in Lents, the LID process for homeowners remains largely dead in the water. The miles of unpaved streets and sidewalks that were going to be addressed out of this reform effort? Never happened. Where’s the money for it after a half dozen years of “reform?”

    I’m guessing, I could be wrong, the Schnitzer property where I couldn’t walk past on the sidewalk a couple of weeks ago –they were building on of their new parking lots– STILL lacks viable sidewalks. (Same as ODOT’s abandoned lots in the Central Eastside Industrial District.)

    We need to start holding property owners accountable. And while this may sound harsh and unbending, it is PRECISELY what we require from property owners who already HAVE sidewalks. (Except, sadly, for a lack of enforcement in industrial areas.)

  7. Frank –

    I think it is quite a step to go from asking property owners “if you have it, maintain it” to “if you don’t have it, build it”, especially for long-time property owners who purchased/built pre-annexation.

    If you wanted to go down that road (I’m only throwing this out as a thought experiment, please don’t accuse me of pushing this idea…), what about a tax on the sale of “unimproved” houses which goes to fund sidewalks and street upgrades of all unimproved properties?

    This puts the actual financial pressure on buyers, however it would likely depress the property values of sellers. It would create an incentive to sellers to perform the upgrades themselves before selling, in which case the tax would not apply. Just a thought.

    – Bob R.

  8. I’m largely in agreement with Bob on this issue. I think that governemnt would be overstepping its bounds if it forced all property owners to construct sidewalks. Access to affordable housing is a fragile thing, and not everyone can afford the addition of sidewalks in front of their home.

    However, my feelings change when it comes to new construction on a piece of property. New construction, which usually means higher density, places an additional burden on urban infrastructure. Adding sidewalks and street trees is a practical tradeoff for mitigating this burden.

  9. what about a tax on the sale of “unimproved” houses which goes to fund sidewalks and street upgrades of all unimproved properties?

    Wouldn’t it make more sense just to assess the cost to the property owner and place a lean on the property that had to be paid off when it was sold?

  10. Wouldn’t it make more sense just to assess the cost to the property owner and place a lean on the property that had to be paid off when it was sold?

    I suppose it might… I guess it depends on which you think is more politically feasible… new tax, or lien on property. Probably not either! :-)

    Actually, my tax thought experiment was meant to create a fund that could be used city-wide in the highest-priority areas first. A lien would imply that the property owner receive an immediate benefit for their specific property. Could be a positive or a negative depending on how you look at it.

    Full disclosure: My property is a corner lot with a sidewalk on one side only. That sidewalk is on a busy street which was widened by the city in the 50’s or 60’s and that widening took out the entire planting strip and half of the sidewalk width!

    Further, the “side” street was widened to accommodate freight traffic and this widening took out would would have been a planting strip area.

    While I can’t afford to go out and hire a contractor if forced to put in a sidewalk on the side street, I’d gladly make the city this offer: Restore the 1/2 width of sidewalk that was destroyed in the past… you can put that strip of concrete on the side street. :-)

    Interestingly, the city has required several new developments in the area to provide a planting strip and a full-width sidewalk. To me, this constitutes a “taking” because these things existed already in this neighborhood when the street was widened. Plus, it makes for a zig-zag in the sidewalk as old properties meet new ones.

    Supposedly there is a station area study going on to address this area… we are 2 blocks from an original MAX station and there are still incomplete sidewalks, artificially narrowed sidewalks, a lot of foot traffic, and the area is used as an unofficial park & ride.

    I was fully aware of these limitations when I moved in… why should I be forced to pay for “improvements”, especially to things which were once existing and later removed by the city?

    – Bob R.

  11. I’m largely in agreement with Bob on this issue. I think that governemnt would be overstepping its bounds if it forced all property owners to construct sidewalks. Access to affordable housing is a fragile thing…

    Then why demand indoor plumbing? Why require sewer hookups? I collected over $100 million from folks in mid-County who we required to build sewers…even if they had working cesspools. I’ll repeat…we MADE PEOPLE HOOK UP TO SEWERS at HUGE personal expense.

    People who bought their homes before they needed sewers. People who bought their homes before they were annexed to the city. People who had to shell out thousands of dollars against their will. But we did it…because we said polluting our groundwater was not OK.

    The issue is, and I’ll be blunt…we don’t care enough about people’s rights to be able to walk safely. It’s why we lack marked crosswalks. It’s why we spent a gazillion dollars on streetcars, trams and MAX, and go all soft and wussy when it comes to providing sidewalks for our kids and seniors. Our handicapped.

    I’m sorry, but we have a responsibility to be multi-modal…or we don’t. We build MAX to service an area, but we can’t afford –or figure out how to pay for– sidewalks. That’s really, really pathetic.

  12. Frank,

    I often disagree with you but in this case I think both your content and tone are right on. Why is this so hard to make happen? It’s the right thing to do and as you note, has been achieved for other purposes.

  13. I have to agree with Frank, I just hooked up to the sewer: $11k. Since there aren’t any water wells within a mile of my property, sidewalks are probably more important than protecting the ground water, and 50 feet of sidewalk is far cheaper than $11k…

    Bob: My property, as defined by my deed, starts about 5 feet back from my sidewalk, which already has a planting strip in front of it. Apparently this is fairly common, I have a friend that wanted to rebuild a retaining wall in front of their house, and the city eventually said yes, but not until after making them jump though a bunch of hoops because the wall wasn’t actually on their property to begin with. As such, if the city decided to widen the road, it won’t be a, “taking,” because I don’t own the land. Certainly it would decrease my property values because it would make my house closer to the street, (and a busier one at that,) but since I knew that that might happen when I moved in, I can’t exactly claim that it is unfair. (Fortunately, for me, my street doesn’t go anywhere, so it is unlikely that it would happen.) I do have to agree with you that the city should have build the new sidewalk when they demolish the old one though.

  14. Matthew – you are correct.

    My only real point of contention is that new developments are being forced to create a planting strip and sidewalk several feet back from where the previous one once existed and was demolished by the city. This compliance with “design code” creates a sidewalk that is actually not in the public right-of-way but on purely private property.

    In a pure greenfield situation I can fully understand the value of planting strips, but in an existing neighborhood where the lots are small and where there once was a planting strip eliminated by a street widening, it seems quite odd to force a new sidewalk onto private property in order to facilitate a new planting strip, especially when all the other properties no longer feature such a strip.

    It would be better, in my opinion, to narrow the street back to its original width.

    Specifically, we are talking about NE 60th Ave. between I-84 and Halsey. 60th east of I-84, all the way to Division, is still at the original width, and 57th (the primary travel route N. of Halsey) is still at the original width all the way to Cully.

    This roughly 7-block stretch is the anomaly. If the city were to actually relocate the sidewalks for everyone to the “design code” area, it would literally wipe out some 80+ year old home’s front porches.

    I do support maintaining the wide street for a couple of blocks, there is a truck route between I-84 and Hassalo. But Hassalo to Halsey could use some restoration. The pedestrian mess here is the city’s fault, not property owners.

    – Bob R.

Leave a Reply to Bob R. Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *