Read on Twitter
Let's talk about this proposal, where developers are asking @CityPortland for a $32M tax break to build 256 new homes in Maine's most transit-accessible location – but also want to build 256 parking spaces in the same building (a thread)... https://www.pressherald.com/2020/08/24/developer-seeks-32-million-tax-subsidy-to-build-housing-in-downtown-portland/
Portland absolutely needs more housing, including for middle-class households, and for that reason, I want this project to succeed.
But we're also in the middle of a climate emergency, and we don't need 256 more exhaust pipes here.
But we're also in the middle of a climate emergency, and we don't need 256 more exhaust pipes here.
Designing this building for car-owners will make these homes a) more expensive and b) less appealing to thousands of car-free households who would otherwise love to live and work downtown, just one block away from bus stops that serve every bus route in the region.
A 256-space parking garage can be expected to cost about $5 million in up-front construction costs (plus about $150K/year in ongoing maintenance). This parking would also use up space that could otherwise be used for more apartments.
In order to meet the state's #climate goals, Portland needs to dramatically increase transit, walking, and biking, and decrease climate-baking auto traffic by at least 1/5 in the next decade.
This proposal doesn't reflect those priorities.
This proposal doesn't reflect those priorities.
The people living here won't just leave their cars in the garage, either: they're going to add to traffic issues throughout the city, and use up scarce parking spaces in other neighborhoods when they drive places instead of walking, biking, or riding @METROgpt.
Other developers are building/proposing new middle-income apartments without tax breaks – by building less parking (see example below).
This suggests the proposed tax break for this project isn't for the housing – it's subsidizing car pollution. https://www.pressherald.com/2020/08/21/new-proposal-could-be-portlands-tallest-building-and-add-260-apartments-downtown/
This suggests the proposed tax break for this project isn't for the housing – it's subsidizing car pollution. https://www.pressherald.com/2020/08/21/new-proposal-could-be-portlands-tallest-building-and-add-260-apartments-downtown/
In the spirit of constructive criticism, here's a three-pronged counter-proposal: 1) cut size of the parking garage by half (at least) to save $2-$3 million in construction costs, and market the apartments to downtown workers and car-free households.
2) If they still want a (smaller) tax break, have the developers enter a long-term contract to buy METRO passes for the building's residents – they're cheaper than parking, contribute to city's bottom line, and don't have to be financed as an up-front construction cost.
3) Earmark some of the developers' savings from less parking and taxpayers' savings from a smaller tax break to buy more bus service – including more bus trips later in the night – to make the whole area even more appealing to car-free households (end thread).
