P
Patrick
Guest
After posting that, I reconsidered. Technically, the right to develop to 65’ feet has never existed, so there would be nothing to sell. But, if the Council thought it was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan (and it is), then they should have been able to change the zoning to that height if they wished. If the neighbors objected on a personal basis, like blocked views (rather than a basis grounded in the comprehensive plan), then they have every right to purchase the rights for themselves.
The new apartment building on Oak Street built right up to a building next to it, where there were plenty of windows onto the former parking lot (now occupied by the new structure). Imagine if the owner of the pre-existing building complained that its views would be blocked. The response would be that if you don’t want that lot developed, you have every right to purchase it and place it in a conservation easement, but you don’t have the right to dictate what your neighbor does outside the bounds of the law.
Now, it would be a much different story if I said someone would have to pay for the air rights to build a 50 story building there, which is unreasonable and not in line with the existing development of the street or with the Comprehensive plan, but that’s not the case. Here, we see the potential for a moderately sized building envelope, in line with existing structures, and neighbors complaining about sights of the Fore River which they are not entitled to by right, law or otherwise, and which may not even in fact be influenced in any way (as I suspect is the case).
Ultimately, the question is whether the Council thinks this was a wise idea, and in this case they didn’t, which is fine. That’s their call. Had this taken place at a different stage of the process—after zoning was changed to allow 65’ structures and an actual proposal came forth—then I think my comment would be more applicable. As it is, the Council has spoken, and that’s that, as they say. I just don’t like the way things played out here. We have a special interest driving property rights (which I know happens all the time, but I still don’t like it). It’s equally bad whether a large developer is bullying the neighborhood or a group of privileged people want to protect their views for free. I know because I do this stuff for work….and it’s always contentious, which is why I believe a FBC would benefit the City (but that’s another story for another day).
One last thing—was there ever any evidence of how a view would be blocked? I just cannot imagine any spot on that hill having a blocked view from such a small building, even if 65’. Moreover, last time I checked, zoning existed and is grounded in the need to protect the public health, safety and welfare, not the private interests of anyone. That’s what’s happened here, though, in complete disregard for the basis on which regulation rests and pulls its legitimacy from.
I'd be curious to hear your friend's thoughts sometime.
Edit -- one more thing I'd like to point out is that your comment presupposes there is agreement about what an "acceptable" level of building height is. As you know, this is a debatable concept, and one different sides of the debate are likely to support with selective use of data and anecdotal experiences. Is there a right answer? I don’t know. I do know, however, that plenty of the best urban places in the world have buildings of roughly 65’, and I personally see no reason why Portland shouldn’t strive to be one of the best urban places it can. Here, only one side was asked for its opinion, those with a direct stake in the outcome. The developer may have been asked in some superficial sense, but it was constrained in disclosing its true thoughts on height by the fact that it had to walk a tight rope—one false move with respect to angering neighbors and it risked losing the right to develop a mixed use project altogether.
Last edited by a moderator:
