Upon prompting by my advisor Liz Safran, I thought through my guiding and research questions for this independent study. My research question was relatively straightforward—How do neighborhood associations interpret and interact with infill development in Portland?—though is obviously subject to tweaks in an iterative process with methods. I’ve come to the conclusion that my primary focus vis-a-vis broad evaluative and instrumental questions concerns the overall equity of local, neighborhood-based planning itself, which I’m phrasing as: To what extent does neighborhood-based planning reinforce inequity?
I have some rather fundamentally contradictory impulses as it relates to this topic. On the one hand, I do fundamentally believe in the local scale, insofar as it is the scale at which direct democratic deliberation and consensus-based decisions are possible. On the other hand, I can readily note the problems arising from such decentralization of power. First, the process of multi-scalar and consensus-based deliberation is admittedly tedious, dragging the planning phase for large projects or changes into a multi-year affair. Participation in levels of governance like neighborhood associations will tend to be dominated by those with the free time and sense of civic duty to devote as volunteers for the association—a group which generally skews older, wealthier, and whiter than the population as a whole. These issues have recently come to the fore in Seattle, where the mayor has suspended the neighborhood councils in light of their misrepresentative membership.
As important and difficult as this issue of creating truly representative and inclusive localism is, the more fundamental contradiction lies in dealing with the often-contradictory conceptions of justice at different scalar levels. Mark Purcell (2005) terms the assumption that “devolution of authority will produce greater democracy” (1925) the local trap. He cautions us against treating any particular scale as imparting inherently more democratic outcomes; raises the issue that definitions of “the people” considered at the local scale may be too tightly delimited; and highlights how “local” “democracy” and “justice” should not be confused as synonymous.
This issue is directly applicable to the relation of neighborhood associations to densification, where local desires for control may conflict with broader municipal affordability and housing justice. Blocking all densification and limiting the scale of new homes to those of old may well form a nearly consensus opinion in many Inner Southeast and Northeast neighborhood. Such a policy may thus be the most democratic, at least based on the polity as defined at solely the neighborhood level. However, it is hard to believe that such an exclusionary policy could be considered just on a more macro level, considering its tendency to sharply limit housing supply in desirable neighborhoods and exclude or push new residents to areas further from the core while enhancing the equity of relatively privileged residents.
These dynamics are further illustrated by the very interesting overlap between the groups promoting Measure 26-179, the initiative to approve bonds for affordable housing construction and preservation, and the YIMBY group Portland for Everyone. Notably, the three neighborhood associations supporting 26-179 are King, Sunnyside, and Cully—the same exact associations most aligned in support of the Residential Infill Project. 1000 Friends of Oregon stands as another prominent group supportive of both infill and the affordable housing measure. This provides some tentative evidence for a quasi-coalition of groups with pro-growth and pro-affordability agendas. I intend to investigate the attitudes of the various Community Development agencies endorsing 26-179 regarding infill, in order to further expand this evidence and develop this argument. Social network analysis may prove quite fruitful in systematizing and illustrating these connections.
With reference to the public comments on the Residential Infill Project, I also started to make a matrix-based classification system for attitudes regarding infill. The City of Portland’s analysis of these public comments noted the two top ranked concerns as affordability and neighborhood character, so I’ve foregrounded the major viewpoints expressed regarding those aspects. The cells within the matrix represent the primary viewpoints and policy responses arising from the combination of differing understandings/prioritization of affordability and character.
[table]
,Increasing density increases affordability,Infill development worsens affordability,No mention of affordability,
Maintaining neighborhood character is important,Regulate the scale of infill but allow increased density,Preserve older “naturally affordable” housing,Preserve neighborhood character/the essence of Portland
No mention of neighborhood character,Liberalize zoning even more than is planned,Require affordable housing through rent control or inclusionary zoning,Largely focused on traffic/parking impacts of development
[/table]
There is quite a bit of overlap within this characterization and plenty of nuance to be added. For instance, some comments accept the need for additional housing in Portland, but propose that this density either occur in residential neighborhoods they don’t live near or be confined to the center city and/or corridors. Also, ADUs (backyard cottages) generally cut across this matrix, with some comments in opposition to duplexes/triplexes accepting ADUs on the basis of their more benign impact on neighborhood scale and demolition pressures.
Leave a Reply