« FIVE OUT OF FIVE STARS! | Main | Good Morning, News! »
Unconfirmed rumor has it that Erik Sten has been jokingly referring to his planned day access center for the homeless in Old Town as his “Taj Mahal.” Whether or not it’s true, the battle for block 25 in Old Town is certainly beginning to acquire a sense of monumental intrigue.
Neighbors voted this afternoon to urge the city to focus again on block 25—which sits between Glisan and Flanders, between SW 3rd and 4th, having voted previously, at a meeting last week, to shift the city’s focus for developing the center to block U, outside Union Station, between 6th and Broadway on Hoyt and Irving. 
BLOCK 25 VOTE: U-TURN!
Nevertheless the vote, which went 13-11 in favor of block 25, where Sten originally proposed putting the center, is unlikely to altogether quash neighborhood tensions on the issue.
“I feel like we’ve been railroaded,” said Stephen Ying, President of the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association, after the vote. “All the stakeholders have turned on me, now that they’ve got their piece of meat from the city, although the Chinese community got nothing.” Read more after the jump.
After the last meeting, Housing Authority of Portland representative Julie Livingston went away to consider of the viability of block U in discussion with TPI boss Doreen Binder, and Blanchet House representative Dan Petrosic. She returned today to tell the committee that block U wouldn't work, because it has a height limit of 75 feet, as opposed to Block 25's 350 foot limit, and a lack of frontage not obscured by on-ramps to the Broadway Bridge. Also, Blanchet and TPI both wanted the visible corner at 6th and Hoyt, and were unwilling to be relegated to a dark corner under the bridge.
Instead, the Old Town Visions group voted today to agree to have the center on Block 25, and focus on coming up with a list of things it wants to see in the access center when it eventually gets built. A group of those most concerned about the center, including Ying from the CCBA, a representative from the Chinese Garden, someone from the Naito Company, and a representative of Old Town Lofts will meet with TPI and Blanchet representatives on Thursday, to come up with such a list.
Old Town Lofts resident Dan Feiner, who wrote to the mayor last week, said he's feeling there's a lack of flexibility on the part of those building the center, in listening to the neighborhood's concerns.
"I'm going to live next door to your project," said Feiner, addressing TPI boss Doreen Binder. "And if there are people in there that are a concern to you, why aren't you concerned about my safety?"
Binder responded: "They're on the streets now. We have a choice—leave them on the streets and do nothing, or we can try to move people into housing."
"Our building has not been consulted," Feiner said. "If there's going to be a decision made, it seems I'm not being given any input. What affects me is not being considered. We're being asked, at this point, to give up everything. Nobody's offering us anything. If someone comes in with a hardened requirement, there isn't any room to negotiate a solution."
"Both of these organizations have been in Old Town for a long time," said Patrick Nolen, of Sisters Of The Road. "I'm not understanding how these two organizations becoming better at what they're doing is hurting the neighborhood. We're talking about a really beautiful building. For me, that's a net gain."
"Block 25 is not ideal," said developer Doug Obletz, of Sockeye Development. "But there is an opportunity here to really require that this be done right. We have the opportunity to negotiate that now. That means better quality of construction, the ground floor of this facility has to be really, really great."
Obletz is right—PDC has to make a recommendation to its board on February 13th, for approval. The center will then need to be voted on before Erik Sten leaves office in April. Some around the table feel Sten is trying to pressure the process by forcing such a vote before he leaves office.
"It's a pretty close vote to make a decision on which block to proceed with," said planning/development consultant Kathryn Krygier, who sits on the board of the Chinese Garden, after the meeting. "It depends on who shows up, who voted, how many people voted twice, and so on."
"For me, it's because the process is being held in such a tight timeframe," Krygier continued. "I believe Erik Sten is trying to push a vote before he leaves, and there really needs to be a better public process."
It's rumored, of course, that the artisans who built the Taj Mahal had their hands chopped off after finishing the building. So if Sten really is intent on building the center as a fitting monument to his work on the 10-year plan to end homelessness, he's likely to meet concerns like Krygier's with the political equivalent of a sharpened machete, and simply cut them off.
We'll keep you posted.
Not everyone is saying the residents are being left out. And the developers argue that building the new center will improve some of the quality of life issues inherent to the current situation, such as off-street lines, and yeah, I guess, pee.
And if pee is really an issue for you, Randy Leonard's new pissoir bathrooms, due to come on line soon, will be really handy.
It would be a useful study to determine the proportion of pee released on the streets by the Friday and Saturday night influx versus the homeless. I think it is certainly debatable where the true blame lies.
Todays meeting really muddies the waters a bit, as it wasn't much of a ruling at all. There will now be a special session Land Use meeting with a smaller group to discuss community guidelines for any development. It will also determine the specific content of and Land Use letter.
One oddity is that the Joint Land Use Committee is operating on a room voting method which is extremely informal. Technically it is a voting Neighborhood Association Sub-committee comprised of 3 Neighborhood Association Board members, and 3 Visions Committee members. It is supposed to be chaired by a Neighborhood Association board member.
They are accountable to the Neighborhood Association, and should someone want a larger ruling on "neighborhood issues" they're entitled to have the Neighborhood Association make that happen.
The way this meeting was run was a disappointment. It continues to fail at getting to the agenda items at hand, and the informality (Visions Style) is opening the door for a rift to form between those who show up and don't (i.e. the neighborhood and the stakeholders). Blanchet has complained, with good cause, about this process at the last meeting. It occurred again today.
There has been a decided lack of time and process. Sten has certainly forced the issue, and so far it's unfortunate because there are better solutions to be had. But it is increasingly looking like Sten will get his "Taj Mahal" or we'll move on to Act II and see how the neighborhood chooses to react to a full block TPI/Access Center + Blanchet on Block 25.
Stay tuned indeed.
Alexander
P.S. Bylaws for OTCTNA:
http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=51359
I guess I don't get it. Is block 25 not ideal because it is essentially at the base of steel bridge off ramp?
Old town/Chinatown is a mess, I get crime alert emails constantly about the sex offenders living in buildings along 3rd Ave. I fail to see how this is going to make it any worse - and just possibly it will help and house some people.
What is up with the CCBA? How many millions did the city spend for grooving Chinatown up and for what. All we've gotten so far is a total freak out about the dragon sculptures.
The meeting agenda was bait and switch. Rather than the promised "update on the due diligence process for Block U siting" we learned that a smaller group had met unannounced the day before and ruled out Block U! No report, nothing.
Thanks, Alexander, for pointing out that the Joint Land Use Committee should have chair designated by neighborhood association, NOT co-chairs.
Alexander is correct. And, I would add that its voting, if permitted, is to be done by only the 6.
Thus, it would interesting to know how the 6 members of the committee voted.
A member for Old Town Chinatown Neighborhood Association is virtually anyone present at the board meeting.
Thus - it is easy to challenge this 'vote.' If one reads the By Laws - there should have been no voting but referred to the neighborhood board.
Stephen Ying was correct - he was railroaded.
kind of like the 50+ person vote from the week before? or are you not complaining about that vote because it went your way?
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).
Old town is sketchy and it smells like pee. This probably won't help. I'm glad that I don't own a business or live over there. It seems pretty unfair to leave out the residents on this. Chinatown could've been a lot cooler to visit.