This Week in the Mercury

Savage Love

Columns

Savage Love

Getting Canned


Geek Out

Film

Geek Out

Wonderfully Horrific



Wednesday, December 2, 2009

Pearl District Residents Resist New Loo

Posted by Matt Davis on Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 12:08 PM

There were banged gavels this morning at city council, and Mayor Sam Adams even threatened to have one Pearl District mother removed from the audience over a dispute about a new loo in Jamison Square.

Pearl District neighbors Sandy Ammerman and Sheila McMahon told council that the Pearl District Neighborhood Association has ignored a 220-signature petition asking for a reconsideration of the planned siting of the loo—in the Zipcar spot on the Southwest corner of the square.

PEARL NEIGHBORS: SANDY AMMERMAN (LEFT) AND SHEILA MCMAHON (RIGHT)
  • PEARL NEIGHBORS: AMMERMAN (LEFT) AND MCMAHON (RIGHT)

"There are more than 220 businesses and residents asking to be heard," said Ammerman. "Let me ask you this—would you want your bedroom within 40 feet of an all-night bathroom, with its potential for noise, crime, and door slamming all night long?" Read all about it after the jump.

The loos, designed and commissioned by City Commissioner Randy Leonard, are part of a plan by the city to locate more public restrooms around the city. There is already one successful loo in Old Town, at SW 5th and Glisan—but that's Old Town. The Pearl is different.

LEONARDS LOO IN OLD TOWN—”OPEN 24 HOURS
  • LEONARD'S LOO IN OLD TOWN—”OPEN 24 HOURS

"Portland is a small city," said Ammerman. "One size does not fit all regarding the loo. This is our neighborhood, this is a big deal."

"Safety is a big concern," said McMahon. "Vehicles would have their views blocked by the loo, and the siting in the Zipcar space would be a major safety hazard for the elderly, blind, and wheelchair bound."

"Jamison Square is a residential neighborhood surrounded by apartment buildings. Children reside in these apartments. The loo interior is lit from the inside—visitors to the loo could be made to feel uncomfortable by being overlooked.”

McMahon said there are already restrooms at REI, Powells, and Safeway, and that the loo at SW 5th and Glisan is within a 20-minute walk, so it fits Portland's plan for "the 20-minute walkable neighborhood."

Both McMahon and Ammerman asked council to hold a public hearing for Pearl District neighbors and businesses before siting the loo. But Leonard responded by turning the discussion back to the neighborhood association—"it is up to you and the neighborhood to decide where to put the loo," he said. "Not whether you want one. And that's an important distinction."

"A couple of summers ago I spent the morning with neighbors, walking through the Pearl talking about facilities for children including a day-care," said Leonard. "And it included a tour of Jamison square where it was pointed out by moms that people using the park in the summer are in need of restrooms, and that business adjacent wouldn't let them use their loos."

"Having said that, I've been disappointed, quite frankly, with a lot of the emails that associate public restrooms with homelessness and crime," Leonard continued. "I'm a strong supporter of public restrooms."

McMahon said she appreciated Leonard's perspective, and thanked him for his time. But then, City Commissioner Nick Fish stepped in, and stirred things up again.

"I want to just amplify something," he said. "I don't want there to be a misconception that the toilet issue has one champion on city council. The toilet issue is a cornerstone of the SAFE [Street Access For Everyone] process. The city has made a commitment to substantially increase public restrooms, because there is substantial unmet demand."

Fish said he agreed that the process for siting the restrooms could be fine-tuned, but he also upped the ante on the discussion.

"I do want to say to you that how we go about this discussion will ultimately, in part, define our city in the next year," he said. "I will tell you that when the question of toilets comes up, the arguments you have made are made everywhere we decide to put a toilet. Recently, the city was required to find a place for a winter warming center where people could go so that they literally would not die on the street. We found a place, and it will not surprise you to hear that all the condo and business owners signed a petition saying that this was an inappropriate location."

Fish was referring to objections raised by developer Mark Edlen, among others, about siting a warming center near the newly-completed Indigo Apartment building, just across the street from the Pearl District. He subsequently elected to open the center across the river, instead.

"We also have a hunger problem, and it will not come as a surprise to you that when homeless feeds moved, we heard from a number of condo and business owners about the new locations," Fish Continued.

RATHORE: ROLLED EYES
  • RATHORE: ROLLED EYES

One audience member seated with McMahon and Ammerman began sighing and rolling her eyes.

"Ma'am, please don't sigh," said Fish, to her. "This may be frustrating to you. But the eye rolling and your sighing does not serve your cause."

The eye-roller was Anjali Rathore, a Pearl District mother with a five-year-old child. "Excuse me," she said, interrupting Fish. Mayor Adams banged his gavel. Rathore continued interrupting. Adams kept banging his gavel.

"Ma'am, you're out of order," said Mayor Adams. She continued to interrupt.

"He shouldn't comment on what I am doing," Rathore said.

Adams banged the gavel again, and a security guard moved over to attempt to remove Rathore. She quieted down.

ADAMS: BANGS THE GAVEL
  • ADAMS: BANGS THE GAVEL

Fish brought his oratory to a conclusion, and the Pearl District neighbors filed out. Rathore was furious.

"First of all, they're misrepresenting," she said. "When [Leonard] said the mothers were with him on their tour of the neighborhood, there was one mother, and a woman from the neighborhood association."

Rathore, who said she was "not terribly proud of [her] outburst," added that Fish was "going on and on and on with his patronizing attempts to educate us." "I spoke up because he spoke up about what I was doing. Not all of us are rich, so don't try to make it about that. I can't roll my eyes and sigh when they are going on and on and on with their explanation? I can't even roll my eyes?"

"We were shut out of the process," said Rathore.

Afterward, Leonard came out and spoke to the neighbors, who plan to attend the next Pearl District Neighborhood Association meeting to voice their concerns again. He really turned on the charm.

"We've just said, we'll try to place it in consultation with the neighborhood," he said. "But it's about the way you make your case. When you're unreasonable, they give them a reason to discount you. It all depends on how you ask."

LEONARD: TALKED WITH PEARL NEIGHBORS AFTERWARDS
  • LEONARD: TALKED WITH PEARL NEIGHBORS AFTERWARDS

"If only the neighborhood association listened to us as you have," said one neighbor.

We'll keep you updated.

 

Comments (36) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
Crickey! Mate's Importing 'is language 'ere!
Posted by NIG GER on December 2, 2009 at 12:32 PM · Report
2
"Having said that, I've been disappointed, quite frankly, with a lot of the emails that associate public restaurants with homelessness and crime..."

If "restaurants" isn't a typo then I don't get it.
Posted by Amos on December 2, 2009 at 12:39 PM · Report
3
They'd rather have people shit on the sidewalk?
Posted by Demondog on December 2, 2009 at 12:43 PM · Report
4
They $#!+ on the sidewalk anyways. You can't force people to not be mentally ill. All you can do is provide a new place to have sex, shoot up, deal, etc ...
Posted by D on December 2, 2009 at 12:50 PM · Report
5
Unbelievable. NIMBY BS continues.
Posted by Brian Libby on December 2, 2009 at 1:00 PM · Report
6
They don't shit on the sidewalk -- they pee in the fountain (the little kids, that is, because there's no restroom in the park).
Posted by Paul Cone on December 2, 2009 at 1:15 PM · Report
7
"They $#!+ on the sidewalk anyways."

How can you say that when the thing hasn't been built yet? People s&$t on the sidewalk because they often have no choice. Our Puritan heritage rears its head again. To quote a certain Pearl District reverend: "Have you ever really read this thing? Technically, we're not allowed to go to the bathroom."
Posted by GLV on December 2, 2009 at 1:19 PM · Report
8
I fully support residents of the Pearl District in their noble fight against the city's Communistic desire to force them to accept the realities of their precious bodily fluids.
Posted by The One True b!X on December 2, 2009 at 1:19 PM · Report
9
@Amos. It was an error! I've corrected it.
Posted by Matt Davis on December 2, 2009 at 1:22 PM · Report
10
The idea that the homeless or the drunk are going to walk 20 minutes to find a restroom is ludicrous. They're just going to take a dump in your condo's foyer. Bunch of fucking idiots.
Posted by Graham on December 2, 2009 at 1:30 PM · Report
11
"Let me ask you this—would you want your bedroom within 40 feet of an all-night bathroom, with its potential for noise, crime, and door slamming all night long?"

I love the idea of people moving into the Pearl District and then complaining about having activity outside, or complaining about the train whistle, or the fact that the Pearl is adjacent to Old Town/Chinatown which was there a hundred years before the Pearl.

Are we saying "loo" now? I don't hear that in common speech much.
Posted by Blabby on December 2, 2009 at 1:32 PM · Report
12
Pearlites crack me up. They move into lofts in what used to be a warehouse district and then they bitch about freight trains. It's like moving next to an airport and bitching about the airplanes.
Posted by Robert Collins on December 2, 2009 at 1:33 PM · Report
13
GLV - yes, there is one built in Old Town. This is for ANOTHER one.
Posted by D on December 2, 2009 at 1:35 PM · Report
14
God, so unfair that their inner-city neighborhood might have inner-city concerns like a place to void your innards! If they want to live in Bridgeport Village, they should move there! If they want to live in the city, well, the city takes all kinds as they say.
Posted by luckymike on December 2, 2009 at 1:36 PM · Report
15
So people living in downtown apartments, where they are surrounded by bathrooms and potential doors to be slammed, are complaining about the potential noise caused by a restroom that is outside and 40 feet away? Do they somehow think that the people who would be doing the door slamming and the drugs and the crime are not there right now because there are no bathrooms? Or would suddenly start hanging out in the Pearl because there is ONE public bathroom by a park surrounded by apartments?
Posted by Jinx on December 2, 2009 at 1:55 PM · Report
16
"It all depends on how you ask."

Excuse me but who the f**ck does Randy Leonard think he is? Since when do taxpayers have to ask elected officials anything in a manner that they don't find offensive? It doesn't sound like anyone was screaming or swearing. These Commissioners are a bunch of corrupt babies and they are offended by a little eye rolling?!! I beg you to sit through a City Council session and listen to these morons; you would roll your eyes to.

Randy Leonard is a condescending POS and no taxpayer should have to beg to be heard.
Posted by Go back to your garage apartment, Randy. on December 2, 2009 at 1:56 PM · Report
17
I love livin' in the city [x2]

My house smells just like the zoo,
It's chock full of shit and puke!
Cockroaches on the walls
Crabs crawlin' on my balls!
Ohh, but I'm so clean cut,
I just wanna fuck some sluts!

I love livin' in the city [x2]

Spent my whole life in the city,
Where junk is king and the air smells shitty.
People pukin' everywhere.
Piles of blood, scabs and hair.
Bodies wasted in the street,
People dyin' on the street,
But the suburban scumbags, they don't care,
Just get fat and dye their hair!

I love livin' in the city [x2]

I love livin' in the city [repeat]

Posted by Demondog on December 2, 2009 at 2:07 PM · Report
18
@blabby Yes, Randy is calling these things "loos."
Posted by Matt Davis on December 2, 2009 at 2:11 PM · Report
19
As a much-hated Pearl District denizen, let me assure that I don't in fact hate freight trains and their whistles. Its part of why I chose to live in the city core. I also think that Jamison Park is the proper location for the siting due to the heavy usage of the square.

Don't paint all of us with your stereotype brush.
Posted by mars on December 2, 2009 at 2:28 PM · Report
20
so basically, those in the pearl think you need to own a condo to take a shit in their neighborhood... Someone should get them a copy of "everybody poops".
Posted by nibbler83 on December 2, 2009 at 2:31 PM · Report
21
Let me ask you this? Would you designate an old warehouse district as an urban renewal zone, giving away millions in tax breaks and then allow a bunch of yuppies to move in, knowing their potential for suburban panty-waisting, white collar crime and righteous indignation?

"Offended by a little eye-rolling". STFU. Randy is for real. Best recognize!
Posted by askmefirst on December 2, 2009 at 3:00 PM · Report
22
The way I figure, the Pearlie NIMBYs don't need public restrooms because their waste (and their over-bred dogs' waste) doesn't stink.

The previous resident has a good point - the children who play in Jamison Square Park need a bathroom. There are bathrooms in other city parks with large numbers of children - why not this one?
Posted by LawyerPepper on December 2, 2009 at 3:13 PM · Report
23
I like how the eye-roller did her eye-rolling in a public meeting, then waxed all outraged that someone noted her doing so. Really? A public employee cannot comment on something that happened in a public setting?

This is because some of us have the right to privacy, and others don't, I suppose?
Posted by rich bachelor on December 2, 2009 at 3:25 PM · Report
24
Nibbler83,
Please don't generalize us. Many of us Pearlites support the Loo and believe that when people visit a public park they have the right to toilet facilities. This is a vocal minority that objects. They also apparently think that it is the businesses who should provide public restrooms:

"McMahon said there are already restrooms at REI, Powells, and Safeway, and that the loo at SW 5th and Glisan is within a 20-minute walk, so it fits Portland's plan for "the 20-minute walkable neighborhood."

They have no clue about the difficulties businesses face providing public restrooms, and fail to understand the negative impact on the business. And seriously, a 20 minute walk to a public restroom with a 3 year old that needs to go to the bathroom? As parents, they should know that is not possible. It's pretty simply, they don't want it in front of their building, if it's somewhere else it's ok.
Posted by yes on the loo on December 2, 2009 at 3:39 PM · Report
25
If you're a "yes on the loo" and in the Pearl District, give me a call! I'm on 503 502 2106. I'd like to hear both sides of this story.
Posted by Matt Davis on December 2, 2009 at 3:56 PM · Report
26
I guess people can always shit on this woman's doorstep. She'll love that.
Posted by Suburban Porn King on December 2, 2009 at 5:25 PM · Report
27
If Pearlite loo supporters don't testify in support of it, it's easy to see why the whole district gets painted anti-loo.

And where were your whiny Pearl District neighbors when Jamison Square went in? That "fountain," as Paul Cone already pointed out, is Portland's biggest toilet already. Kids just wander into the bowl, sit down, smile, and then the whole thing flushes. Who really wants THAT next to their house?
Posted by Carl on December 2, 2009 at 5:42 PM · Report
28
Like all parks, Jamison needs a loo, but even more so because of all the kids. But I as an occasional nanny occasionally need one, too.....
Posted by talea on December 2, 2009 at 6:21 PM · Report
29
"Jamison Square is a residential neighborhood surrounded by apartment buildings. Children reside in these apartments."

vs.

"And it included a tour of Jamison square where it was pointed out by moms that people using the park in the summer are in need of restrooms, and that business adjacent wouldn't let them use their loos."

WHEN PORTLAND ENTITLE-MOMMIES COLLIDE!
Posted by Kincardine on December 2, 2009 at 6:27 PM · Report
30
It's really interesting how people want to live near a park-a public space-and get the benefit of increased property values, but then don't want to deal with the issues of living near a public space. Do they think the problem will just go away? The neighborhood association has been dealing with this for years, why weren't they involved earlier? If they are so concerned about their neighborhood they why aren't they making the small effort of staying informed?
Posted by whiners and cry babies on December 2, 2009 at 6:57 PM · Report
31
"If only the neighborhood association listened to us as you have," said one neighbor."

The real question is why you weren't involved in the process before? Why didn't you attend the neighborhood association meetings over the years when the problem was discussed? The neighborhood association listens, but you have to participate and talk to them in order for them to hear you.
Posted by bla bla bla on December 3, 2009 at 7:19 AM · Report
32
Once again I'm glad that our city leaders' civic myopia prevents their progressive attentions from being focused east of the Willamette!
Posted by jimdittmer on December 3, 2009 at 8:37 AM · Report
33
Maybe the city council wants to build the "loo" so their police goons won't be forced to KILL another person who urinates in the street.
Posted by PDXCityCouncilBlows on December 3, 2009 at 11:01 AM · Report
34
My wife and I have lived in the Pearl for 5 years in a building that borders on Jamison Park. We are in favor of locating a "loo" (or how about "WF" for "water feature"??) in the park but would favor getting a neighborhood design proposal together so that whatever goes in focuses on the daytime users who have made the park the great place it is. Small children in large numbers really do represent a functional need that may be specific to this location. The proximity of the streetcar stop is another feature that should be considered. Is it possible that the exterior design and specific location could be improved so that the final result doesn't look like a dumpster add-on? Doesn't have to look like the bleddy Taj Mahal ... but maybe everyone could step back, take a deep breath, and think it through. Start with, YES, we need something here. Then proceed to do it sensibly. How hard would that be?
Posted by handoc on December 3, 2009 at 12:30 PM · Report
35
Why the city insisted the toilet should be 24/7 non-negotiable ?! Will there be any kids or older folks wondering around the park in the middle of the night ?!
Posted by DINK on December 3, 2009 at 11:09 PM · Report
36

I'd like some clarification. Is the city proposing a 24 hour "loo" in Jamison Square?

Many of Portland's public restrooms close at 11 PM. According to the PHLUSH web site:

"Downtown Portland has a number of free standing, open space comfort stations. These include the historic comfort stations in Chapman, Lownsdale and Ankeny Parks and more recent structures in Waterfront Park under the Hawthorne Bridge and at RiverPlace Marina. All are operated by Portland Parks and Recreation and maintained Downtown Clean and Safe. They are open seven days a week from 8 am to 11 pm."

http://phlush.org/portlandtoilets/comfort-stations/

Posted by Number1 on August 23, 2010 at 4:02 PM · Report

Add a comment

/images/adoftheweek.gif

ad of the day

The Handyman Pro - Your Honey-Do Specialist
Don’t let our name fool you. The Handyman Pro, LLC is a repair and remodel service provider with over 25-years experience. We cover all aspects of construction and repairs for residential and commercial clients.go


post an ad

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC

115 SW Ash St. Suite 600
Portland, OR 97204

Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Production Guidelines | Terms of Use