Mahonia Land Trust
Our interviews with members of the Mahonia land trust John and Bev Martinson, Tina Buetell, and Linn Davis reflected a zoning success story. All four interviewees expressed their observations of “creeping” development and their appreciation for zoning that protects valuable farmland. Overall, while these members of the Mahonia land trust acknowledged tension between their values of affordable housing, social justice, and open space preservation, they seemed to perceive zoning restrictions as necessary for maintaining important community resources.
During our drive from the city, over the UGB, and to Mahonia, Tina and Linn told a story of consistent and noticeable change. “From the beginning until now,” Tina reflected, “it’s just been a continuous creep of development closer and closer, in areas that were orchards or vacant lots or big lots with houses and gardens and open land” (Interview, Tina Buetell). Similarly, Linn noted the “Boom” that sounded in his head as we passed over the UGB, a reflection of the visible difference between developed and undeveloped land. The UGB seemed to represent the ability to hold on to precious, productive land that would otherwise be paved over. Tina summarized: “Thank goodness for the zoning and all these restrictions, because we’ve been able to not have such high land values, keep it forest land, because that’s what it’s good for. So it’s been to our advantage to have the zoning the way it is” (Interview Tina Buetell).
According to John and Bev, the UGB has been successful in protecting productive farmland from development (despite minor setbacks). While unfortunately neighbors sometimes “sell out” (sell their land and move somewhere where subdivisions are unrestricted), the UGB actually helps minimize this trend; neighbors outside the UGB often feel joined in a community of like-minded people, and are therefore discouraged to move in order to protect community structure. Additionally, by preventing excessive subdivision of plots the UGB protects against what John calls the “gentrification of farmland,” in which rich people buy land to create “hobby farms” that produce goods only for their own pleasure. On a personal level, John values his ability to be a part of a land trust; as someone who started out with few assets, this option allowed him to explore interests such as farming, architecture, and community building in an environment that did not force him to prioritize money making.
The primary problem that stands in the way of maximizing the productive success of land outside the UGB, according to John and Bev, is that restrictions on subdivision can harm new farmers and struggling farmers. Because plots are large and subdivision is heavily restricted, new farmers are forced to take on more land than they can handle, often leading to failure. Farmers struggling to pay for extra expenses (such as education, for example) may also resent the restrictions on subdivision that prevent them from selling just one acre to pay the bills. When asked about proposed solutions to these problems, Bev suggested that the county government could provide startup money to cushion new or struggling farmers during their learning or adjustment curves. In response, John reflected that any changes in zoning policies (including the UGB) should be “tweaks” rather than systematic changes. In his opinion, the inability of new and struggling farmers to subdivide their properties is not a huge problem, because overall the goals of zoning to preserve farmland and open space against development (and hobby farms) are upheld.
Finally, when asked who the “losers” have been in the creation of the UGB, John noted that every decision has positive and negative effects. He said, “In our society, you can assume that poor people and minorities will feel the negative effects most.” While John did not elaborate on what their negative experiences might be, he implied that the UGB could raise housing prices within the city. John and Bev agreed that if the population in the Portland area continues to rise, the presence of local farms (and the food they produce) would be essential. The benefits of local land for productive farming would be an asset to all.
Tina and Linn provided more outright thoughts regarding gentrification and housing affordability within the UGB. Linn, who is currently studying the effects of the UGB on housing price at Portland State University College of Urban and Public Affairs, believes that the UGB creates minimal impact on housing affordability. He said, “[the UGB] confines development, rather than restrict it. So it prevents there from being little subdivisions way out in the boonies here and there, but it doesn’t really constrict the development inside it” (Interview, Linn Davis). Nevertheless, gentrification is occurring and Tina and Linn both mused about its causes. Both agreed that the pressure to develop probably comes, at least partially, from people with disposable income moving from places like California, where housing is more expensive. Overall, they agreed that “The point was not to try to gentrify these inner urban areas” (Interview, Linn Davis).
Liz Fouther-Branch and Nya Branch
Liz and Nya tell negative stories of change in their NE Portland community. While both Liz and Nya say explicitly that they do not “know much about urban planning,” they have clear opinions about the social and infrastructural changes she has observed and experienced firsthand (Interview, Liz Fouther-Branch). When Liz was seven years old (around 1959), she and her family were forced to move due to urban removal. The neighbors in her new neighborhood “begged” her and her family to move out, but they stayed. “That neighborhood is now one of the most expensive areas on the NE side,” she says. “Thank God, they bought the house in the sixties, they wouldn’t be able to afford it now” (Interview, Liz Fouther-Branch). Similarly, Nya has felt discrimination firsthand. She states, “I have been told that the people pushed out did not deserve to live in the area because they did nothing with it, and when I have explained that the resources to the people from this area were limited that I was making an excuse…The subject is tough, touchy and painful. No one cares except for the people that once called this area home” (Interview, Nya Branch).
While Liz and Nya appreciate that some positive revitalization has happened in North Portland industrial areas and the Lents community (particularly, the presence of more small businesses), they see many problems with urban development and injustice in their neighborhood. According to Liz, these problems include: displacement, gentrification, loss of sense of community, loss of historical sites, badgering by developers, poorly constructed homes, and “overbuilt rental structures that are ugly and expensive.” (Interview, Liz Fouther-Branch). Liz notes the systematic and continuous ways in which injustice and discrimination seem to be embedded in urban planning, saying, “The features of urban development, [particularly its interest in] making lending easier for outside groups and leaving communities out of the discussion around urban planning, has been going on most of my 63 years” (Interview, Liz Fouther-Branch). Nya, too, notes gentrifying features in the neighborhood: “Neighborhoods that were once described as unsuitable for “regular” Portlanders have become hot commodity locations, thus pushing out families that have lived in neighborhoods for generations” (Interview, Nya Branch).
Liz and Nya have not engaged much with thought about Portland’s UGB (and both acknowledge this in their interviews). Both told stories of the development of gentrification that did not include the UGB as an active player. When prompted about who benefits most from Portland’s UGB, Liz answered that developers are the largest beneficiaries, and Nya suggested that “rich people (usually developers and landowners) and politicians” are the greatest beneficiaries (Interview, Nya Branch). This suggests that perhaps they conflates the UGB with urban planning in general, or even with gentrification. This association may come from previous ideas about the UGB, or it may simply be a reflection of the questions we asked over email. Nonetheless, Liz’s perception that urban development “has nothing to do with supporting communities, people of color, seniors or people with disabilities” shows that she, and the people in her community, have been left out in the discussion of development in Portland. Liz sums up, “I don’t believe urban developers or city planners care much for this population and their needs” (Interview, Liz Fouther-Branch). Nya agrees, saying “To me city planning and the Urban Growth Boundary is just a vehicle to push “undesirable people” from their neighborhoods in order to make money” (Interview, Nya Branch). Finally, Nya sums up her perceptions of solutions to this gentrification. She says, “There really is no remedy. What’s done is done.” Minority owned businesses should “have access to some of the development money that has been pumped into the area” (Interview, Nya Branch).
Overall, Liz and Nya’s occupation with the condition of their neighborhood serves as a testament to the problems of gentrification, displacement, and racism in Portland. These interviews on their own do not provide us with answers about the relationship of the UGB to gentrification, but provide an important counterpart to the narrative told from the perspective of the Mahonia Land Trust members. When compared with the Albina Community Plan, these interviews suggest that many of the goals of the plan (including the preservation of historic sites and the inclusion of residents in decision making) have not succeeded.