Dr. StrangeHat
Active Member
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2012
- Messages
- 904
- Reaction score
- 1,132
I think Executive Sessions are closed doors, right?
M
markhb
Guest
Yes, so unless there was a motion to do something other than adjourn after the closed-door portion (HIGHLY unlikely), the only people who know how it went are sworn to secrecy.
M
markhb
Guest
Portland City Council weighs future of land once slated for failed ‘Midtown’ project
The city bought back the 3 lots on Somerset Street from a developer in July. Councilors are exploring options for the future of the 3.25 acres, which have been empty for about 15 years.
www.pressherald.com
The Press Herald mentions that they had the Executive Session, then basically goes around the room and gets each Councilor to give their wishlist. Including a park was popular with a couple of them (strikes me that you could dress up the Bayside Trail and make it more of a linear park.)
My biggest takeaway is that Kate Sykes has little to no interest in advocating for the needs of the SF homeowners in her district. Anyone who was paying attention probably knew that when she was elected, but I'd say, if the District 5 Councilor is not going to take on that role, then who?
DanielPWM19
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2020
- Messages
- 511
- Reaction score
- 806
The commentary that housing is needed and could be done well with the right developer is great.Portland City Council weighs future of land once slated for failed ‘Midtown’ project
The city bought back the 3 lots on Somerset Street from a developer in July. Councilors are exploring options for the future of the 3.25 acres, which have been empty for about 15 years.
The Press Herald mentions that they had the Executive Session, then basically goes around the room and gets each Councilor to give their wishlist. Including a park was popular with a couple of them (strikes me that you could dress up the Bayside Trail and make it more of a linear park.)
My biggest takeaway is that Kate Sykes has little to no interest in advocating for the needs of the SF homeowners in her district. Anyone who was paying attention probably knew that when she was elected, but I'd say, if the District 5 Councilor is not going to take on that role, then who?
But I don't get the need for a public park or the desire for open space? Apparently it's a line in the sand?
Literally ... Deering Oaks is right there, Kennedy Park, and ALL OF BACK COVE.
By all means, walk up the hill a bit for Lincoln Park, and the precious Congress Square Park.
Except ... all of these places will be riddled with homeless people, so no one will hang out in any of the parks - existing or newly created. That's not a judgement on homelessness or our city's management of it, but just something realistic. These lots should be appropriately land-filled to raise the ground-level and then developed to their highest potential. Stick a pocket park in the middle somewhere to breakup a row of buildings - that's fine. Maybe that will deter SOME homeless hanging out there. Perhaps with appropriate lighting, ground-level retail, and foot traffic it won't be inundated by the homeless. Then we'll just see complaints, car break ins, police presence, drug use (already all over Bayside), and pissing in corners. No one is going to want to live here unless Bayside is cleaned up. The city isn't thinking broadly enough to address all of it.
P
Portlander
Guest
Though I look forward to the Midtown parcels eventually being developed, my personal priorities are Herald Square, Top of the Old Port parking and the remaining Portland Square lots. I'm for filling in the holes closer to the core and then expanding on the fringes of downtown.
P
Portlander
Guest
Agree.
I think everyone is in agreement the housing is needed. Redfern is planning their big development across the street as well as reveler. It was our friends at Keep Portland Livable that torpedoed the project due to the views from Chestnut Street Lofts... Also, the property is deed restricted from the railroad that only certain things can be built there due to contamination. We will see if anyone is dumb enough to partner with the city for this project. I laugh at the video at the people and Councilors that chimed in, i was involved in this project and we had public input from the start. How people forget how much has gone into these parcels...
Do we know if this is still true? I recall being told that "only" commercial uses could be built on the lots back when the first RFP went out in 2007 or 2008, but after a couple of years, Federated proposed housing.
At this point, the deed has changed hands several times, and so has the corporate ownership of the railroad. I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that eminent domain (which the city exercised to get ownership back) eliminates deed restrictions anyhow.