Right Out Of Some Ayn Randian Nightmare
Portland wants to force people who build new buildings to provide space for homeless campers on their property.
Nigel Jaquiss writes in Willamette Week:
If a majority of the Portland Planning and Sustainability Commission has its way, new private buildings downtown will be required to include spaces where houseless Portlanders can "rest," which could include sleeping and pitching tents."The heart of the issue is that we have increasing housing costs and we cannot support all of the people who live here now and are going to live here in the future," says Oriana Magnera, the planning commissioner who pushed hardest to include the new language.
Magnera's proposal would stretch what's asked of developers and owners of new private buildings, such as stores and apartment complexes.
Her idea initially drew support from all her colleagues, but after further discussion encountered strong pushback from a minority of commissioners, who may still try to derail it before it reaches the City Council.
...Magnera, who works as the director of climate and energy policy at Verde, a Northeast Portland environmental justice nonprofit, stopped the conversation and pushed to add the words "rest and be welcome" to that guideline. She explained that public spaces around buildings often include "benches but not a lot of place to pitch a tent."
"Sitting is brief," she said, "but the reality of the housing shortage is, folks need to rest on a longer-term scale."
"We need spaces where folks can feel supported and safe," she told her fellow commissioners.
This is what happens when people go through public schools without learning about world history, and specifically, how communism has "worked out."
Property rights, of course, are one of the foundations of a democracy.
The government does not get to effectively nationalize part of a person's property, even if hay-headed, history-bereft nitwits think that's a groovy idea.
If the government is so concerned, why don't they build homeless shelters, or at least designate a park a campground or something.
NicoleK at December 9, 2019 1:22 AM
"Folks". I don't like it when government officials use that word.
Ken R at December 9, 2019 2:27 AM
Because they believe that mandating private citizens to do this is cost-free or a cost borne by evil corporations. It's not a history lesson that they need, it's an economics one.
Like the Trabant example from the other day, older buildings, the ones lacking a space for "folks" to "rest," will become more valuable real estate since they won't be surrounded by a bivouacking army of the homeless.
Unintended consequences.
Will these "resting spaces" to rest include toilets? Running water? Fire safety? No? Well, that will work out just fine, I'm sure.
Conan the Grammarian at December 9, 2019 4:11 AM
"Folks" used to be kind of a generic word but it has heavy woke connotations now.
NicoleK at December 9, 2019 5:07 AM
Pretty sure this will be found unconstitutional if it makes it up to SCOTUS. I recall a case from about ten years ago, somewhere on the coast in New England, where, in order to get a building permit for a lot on the beach, the owner was being required to construct a public beach access across their property. SCOTUS found that this was an unconstitutional taking of property without compensation.
Cousin Dave at December 9, 2019 6:04 AM
Portland is:
Crid at December 9, 2019 8:48 AM
I’d be all for it, IF they added a clause about it initially applying only to the residences or properties of the politicians voting yes on the bill.
I see a great ad for it just use a picture of an old Southern Mansion with the slave quarters nearby.
Either one should kill this idiotic bill. I don’t trust California courts to find anything unConstitutional. SCOTUS maybe
Joe j at December 9, 2019 9:01 AM
Who wants to live in an apartment complex with a homeless settlement? No one. Who is going to build an apartment complex with no tenants? No one.
So we help the homeless by preventing people from building apartment complexes. Alrighty then.
Curtis at December 9, 2019 9:53 AM
Portland already has a law (IIRC) that you may not cut a tree on your property without permission--the trees belong to "the people"--I believe San Diego has this same law. Even if the tree is a hazard, diseased, leaning over your house. Just because they want more trees they think "wanting" allows "taking": like children.
They keep doing things that make housing more expensive or a big hassle to build (years for a permit, anyone can sue to stop you) and then are upset that people can't afford to live there. By the way, there are places people can afford to live, just not downtown in a big urban area.
cc at December 9, 2019 10:46 AM
It's not a history lesson that they need, it's an economics one.
If they pass this nonsense, they'll get one.
I R A Darth Aggie at December 9, 2019 10:47 AM
Oh, and these are the same cities that outlaw high occupancy housing (setting minimum sq ft requirements, lot sizes, max # people per apt), and dorm style or SRO style housing. Everyone gets a nice house in unicorn land, except they don't.
cc at December 9, 2019 10:49 AM
why don't they build homeless shelters, or at least designate a park a campground or something
Because that would make the city legally liable. They want to pass that cost onto other people, in addition to the other ills being passed along.
I R A Darth Aggie at December 9, 2019 10:49 AM
My last trip to Portland was to get 4x4 installed on my van last summer.
Witnessed an incident downtown. What I’m assuming was a homeless dude masturbating in the parking lot of a restaurant. A police officer was eating in the restaurant. Me and another guy informed the officer. Families were walking by. The officer talked to the guy who then looked pissed off, then he walked around the front of the building. The officer just got in his car and left, not sure if he decided it wasn’t his problem or what. The homeless guy started getting busy again. Right next to a window of the restaurant with people eating, and with people walking by. People inside turned away to not see the performance.
I thought it was insane. People just seemed to shrug it off. It was surreal to me.
Abersouth at December 9, 2019 2:21 PM
My answer to her requirements:
https://www.alamy.com/stack-of-big-industrial-metal-pipes-image188057083.html
Ken McE at December 9, 2019 2:55 PM
What’s the libertarian approach to dealing with people who are homeless?
JD at December 9, 2019 7:07 PM
Leave a comment