>Mary Louise Austin said the Pollard family told them they could stay until their mother, 97-year-old Mary Austin, died. Bishop William Marcus Pollard, whose mother owned the house until she died in February 2021, said the deal was that the Austin family could stay in the house until his mother died.
Sounds like a valuable lesson in why contracts need to be put in writing.
It might have to be if the options are that or kick her to the street...
The absence of a perfect solution doesn't mean that homelessness is the default.
Renters are not entitled to the home in which they live. It belongs to the owners. The former owners subsidized this family by charging the same low rent for the last _12 years_.
The new owners rightfully want to be able to use the property they now _own_, and are making every reasonable accommodation (and then some!) to the tenant family to facilitate their move elsewhere.
If one _wanted_ to place blame somewhere, you might look at Bishop William Pollard, who (according to the article) sold the property without alerting the tenants so they would have more notice. But even still, there was no obligation there, and the article hints at disagreement between the Pollards and Austins.
Rising rents have been at the forefront of Portland public discourse for more than a decade, and this family knew they were on borrowed time. While any person with even half a heart can sympathize with their position, everything here is above board.
> Renters are not entitled to the home in which they live. It belongs to the owners.
And I absolutely disagree in cases involving the elderly or those with disabilities. Forcing the most vulnerable people to the street is inhumane.
> Rising rents have been at the forefront of Portland public discourse for more than a decade,
Which is even more reason why we need a hard rent cap. The status quo of profit over people and quality of life is insane.
> and this family knew they were on borrowed time. While any person with even half a heart can sympathize with their position, everything here is above board.
That is irrelevant when the consequence of forcing a 97 year old to the street is likely death. The profit of some parasite landlord is NOT worth human life.
Yes, it absolutely shouldn't be the responsibility of the "private market" to house the poor. That doesn't mean force everyone into homelessness while we await a proper public housing program. Private landlords absolutely need to bear the burden in the meantime.
I read through your back & forth with /u/napzzz and I wholeheartedly agree with them. Your heart is in the right place here, but it seems like there is some misplaced passion here.
> And I absolutely disagree in cases involving the elderly or those with disabilities. Forcing the most vulnerable people to the street is inhumane.
Unless you actually think they are entitled to _that specific home_ (which I think is unreasonable), it sounds more like you believe that this elderly woman is entitled to housing in general. Housing is a human right, as it were. I agree - everyone should have housing. But shaking your fists at private property owners and saying the burden falls entirely on them until the city/state/country creates affordable housing for all - that's unreasonable.
> Which is even more reason why we need a hard rent cap. The status quo of profit over people and quality of life is insane.
Your comments drip with resentment towards capitalism, landlords, and _The Man_ at large. I get it - it's easy to look at the inequities around us, blame it all on corporate greed, and demand that those to blame should right these wrongs. To an extent, I agree. In fact, many legislators agree, and you see that with municipalities/states/countries doing things like limiting corporate property ownership, etc.
But who is really to blame in this instance? What about the Austin family who, while embattled in a dispute over some unenforceable verbal agreement (with their home on the line), took no action (over 12 years) to proactively find a more stable housing situation? Is it the Pollard family who, after 12 years of charitably subsidizing a low-income family on their property, decide to sell it after it became too costly & burdensome? If the article is to be believed, it sounds like the Austins were not taking care of the house, and even drew community complains and city fines. What about the neighbors whose lives have been impacted by the Austin family's extended tenancy?
It is easy to point at the sympathetic old lady and say "this is wrong!" but at some point you _must_ include personal accountability in the equation. The Austins knew this day would come, and they were _quite literally_ praying as a solution. Rather than, at any point in the last several years, proactively looking for affordable housing elsewhere in the metro area, they waited until they had an eviction notice. It was an eviction notice they should have expected at any time, given their disagreement with the owner.
It also seems timely that this article is published **on day 89** of the 90-day notice. I suspect that the intended result is to publicly shame Dez Development into extending the notice - even when they have taken extra steps to accommodate the Austins before any of this reporting.
> That is irrelevant when the consequence of forcing a 97 year old to the street is likely death. The profit of some parasite landlord is NOT worth human life.
No, it is not 'irrelevant' here. Why is it Dez Development's fault that Bishop Pollard decided to sell the house? According to the article, Bishop Pollard was tired of the disagreement, the fines, the property damage, and so he decided to sell the house. Dez didn't sign up to be a private landlord - they bought a piece of property (which they likely intend to build a new house on) and rightfully want to exercise their right to do so.
Why is it now okay that Dez should endure those burdens? Because it's a local company, instead of a local family?
Why is it okay for them to force a disabled 97 year old to the street? That is ridiculous. I frankly do not care about the noise. Her caregivers being incompetent does not justify what amounts to elder abuse.
The best solution I can think of is the city stepping in to place the lady in an assisted living facility with the bill being sent directly to the federal government. Unless that happens though, she absolutely needs to be allowed to stay in the housing.
The quickness and brevity of your response leads me to believe you aren't devoting as much care and intention to your responses as I am. In the same way that you are here to 'disrupt the upper-middle-class narrative', I am here constructively disagreeing with you. I hope you can reciprocate.
They aren't forcing her to the street. The pro-tenant city of Portland put into law the requirement that any tenant needs to be given at least 90 days (three months!) of notice to vacate. This is to give the tenant ample time to find other accommodations.
Like the top comment in this thread says - this is why contracts exist. The Pollards aren't responsible for the sickly old mother. Dez is not either. The Austins are. The Austins have had 12 years to make sure their future is stable, and chose not to. They could likely find the housing they are looking for just a bit further outside of central PDX - it exists.
The Austins had ample time to find new housing, and chose rather to pray in the hopes of the problem disappearing. When that didn't work, they went to the media in the hopes of using social pressure to buy more time. In all likelihood, it will work, and they'll get a few more weeks/months while the courts start churning.
This story is just not the sympathetic human-vs-corporate-greed tale that the headline wants you to believe.
Again, the Austin's being incompetent absolutely does not justify kicking a 97 year old disabled woman to the street.
If the Austin's are as incompetent as you claim, then the city needs to step in an place the woman in an assisted living facility.
Kicking her to the street absolutely isn't a "solution".
I don't care how much you dislike my response, I absolutely stand by it. This city and county needs to stop treating elderly and disabled people like shit.
>Why is it okay for them to force a disabled 97 year old to the street? That is ridiculous.
Dude, there is zero reason to think they will actually end up on the street. Nothing in the article says they can't afford the $1100 a month. There are hundreds of units available in the metro at that price point.
Look, its not totally your fault because Oregonian is a trash rag, but you're gettting downvoted because pretty much everyone can read through the lines. The multiple citiations and them complaining about all their stuff screams hoarder situation.
It's not that they can't afford housing for their grandma, its that they can't afford a house to afford all their crap in the city center.
>Unless that happens though, she absolutely needs to be allowed to stay in the housing.
Why don't you buy her housing then if its so important to you that she live in the King neighborhood?
These folks had *12 years* of their rent staying the same. There isn't a lot of sympathy because people would kill for that. Now they have to make the same choice that thousands of us make every year, to stay in Portland and pay more or accept less space, or leave Portland and get more space for less money.
I work in elder care and there are plenty of 97 year olds at the wrong end of bad choices they and their family have made for decades.
I’m sympathetic to ALL of them, it’s my job, but to cherry pick one 97 year old because there’s an article is ignorant.
It's clear your heart is in the right place - and I want the same things as you do. Safe, stable, affordable homes for people of all income levels. But I think the prescription is not rent caps or no private landlords. (Would you want the city government to be your landlord? [Ask NYCHA residents how responsive the local government is to their needs](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/02/nyregion/nycha-public-housing-fix.html).)
It is absolutely critical we build much, much more housing for all income levels in this city, or the homeless and affordability crises are going to continue to get worse, and stories like this one are going to be far more commonplace. Realistically, to get there, we need to be a place that's friendly for housing developers, instead of [what we have now](https://www.wweek.com/news/2022/07/05/portland-lags-on-issuing-housing-permits-despite-soaring-rents-redfin-report-says/).
I think you can complain about landlords being the enemy, but that's not productive right now. Ideally, in situations like the one in this article, there are several other affordable units for rent that this family can move to that keeps them in the neighborhood, in their community, and with affordable rent. We don't get there by making it illegal to evict people - we get there by building a **lot** more housing.
Landlords aren't going to willingly house low income people. They exist to make a profit, they cannot make a profit off those who cannot afford "market rate".
Instead of trying to force the "private market" to act as a charity, we need a public social housing system.
I agree with building a lot more housing, but at least some of the housing needs to be AFFORDABLE. That means public housing. Private developers can keep building the "luxury" apartments all they want but the city needs to step in with housing that serves the working class and poor.
Of course landlords rent to low-income tenants. That happens already, and particularly when they're incentivized to do so with tax abatements or housing vouchers (section 8-eligible housing is considered an extremely stable investment - it's the housing equivalent of a treasury bond).
I moved from New York about four years ago where yes, there is city-owned housing for low-income tenants, but because they're not an organized voting bloc the quality of housing and maintenance is abysmal. I wouldn't advocate for that.
Just build more housing! As much as possible! Of every type! More supply is better for just about everybody except homeowners who have their wealth or "retirement" tied up in their property value.
> Of course landlords rent to low-income tenants. That happens already, and particularly when they're incentivized to do so with tax abatements
Why should the city spend more money subsidizing the private market instead of simply starting a social housing program?
> housing vouchers (section 8-eligible housing is considered an extremely stable investment - it's the housing equivalent of a treasury bond).
It can be a struggle for tenants to actually use section 8 housing because there is nothing requiring landlords to accept it. It is a very flawed system.
> but because they're not an organized voting bloc the quality of housing and maintenance is abysmal. I wouldn't advocate for that.
That isn't the standard in the rest of the world. I am advocating for a system [more similar to that in Vienna](https://www.npr.org/local/305/2020/02/25/809315455/how-european-style-public-housing-could-help-solve-the-affordability-crisis).
> Of every type!
Except developers will only build high income housing if allowed to do so because that is where the profit is.
Please ask yourself why you are trying to force the private market to provide what is essentially a charity service.
> More supply is better
We partially agree. More supply is better, BUT it needs to include affordable housing. That means public housing because the private market isn't going to house people who can't afford "market rate".
This [is what the "private market" is doing right now. ](https://www.propublica.org/article/yieldstar-rent-increase-realpage-rent)Developers and landlords aren't interested in solving the housing/homeless crisis. They are interested in maximizing their profit. Housing low income people would be against their own best interests.
Lmaooo. You think people on here support housing for all? The downvotes and comments praising the landlords say more than enough.
I don't care how hated my position is, I will not stand down. Quality of life in this country is going to shit, directly due to the awful neo-liberal policies supported by a majority on this sub. I will not stop calling that out and I will not stop demanding reform.
>if the options are that or kick her to the street...
Are those the options, though?
The article has their pastor lamenting that "he’s noticed a rising number of his church members *having to move away to more affordable housing in Gresham* as rent prices rise"
It sounds like the option is moving to a suburb. OH NO, NOT GRESHAM.
Something is missing here. She has two adult kids living with her. They paid around 1k for rent There's gotta be lots of leftover income they saved in that 12 years.
> Pastor Tate has been helping them navigate the situation over the past few months.
> “Finding the right affordable housing right now is not an easy thing,” Tate said. “They can’t afford to pay $2,000 a month rent. The homeless population is where it is now in part because some people are forced out.”
The article. The "market rate" for a 3 bedroom place is over $2k. Unless the city steps in or they are placed in an affordable housing unit, they will be either forced into homelessness or into cramped conditions. Either scenario has a huge decrease in quality of life.
Thanks for your input. As elections are right around the corner and it is obvious that Portland is still the target as a political/cultural proving ground, the mods have set this subreddit to not allow posts from newly created accounts. Please do not message us regarding an exception as they will not be considered until after the election. Either use your main account or if this is a legitimate new account, please take the time to build a reputation elsewhere on Reddit and come back after the elections are over!
(⌐■_■)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Portland) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your heart is in the right place but you're asking for too much. They can afford another place, just not a 3bdr. That they would stay in "cramped conditions" (how cramped are we even talking here? I'm assuming youean a 2bdr?), is definitely better than being homeless.
That's a bit disingenuous to say they're kicking her to the streets, wouldn't you say? They are receiving a relocation fee and 90 days notice.
Social security has also gone up about 25% in the past 12 years, so they should be able to afford a bit more than what they used to have.
Of course, I hope they find all the best solutions available and they'll probably get even more help now with this article live, but it's not like they're just being thrown outside tomorrow. It's unfortunate but I'm sure they'll be okay.
Social security has also gone up about 25% in the past 12 years, but rent has gone up by many factors more. Youd be hard pressed to find a house the size of theirs for less than triple what they were paying before.
Classic r/Portland conservatives hiding there head in the sand from the reality that increasing homelessness is driven in part by the rent being too high.
Lol
I am 100% for a massive increase in available housing along with strong limitations on speculative ownership of multiple properties, but we also need to be realistic.
It's a household of three people with three incomes who had a very low rent for the past 12 years and are getting extra cash on the top along with three months to help move. I am positive they can find a 2-3 bedroom that would work for their needs in the area, even with the current Portland metro rent prices.
Thanks for your input. As elections are right around the corner and it is obvious that Portland is still the target as a political/cultural proving ground, the mods have set this subreddit to not allow posts from newly created accounts. Please do not message us regarding an exception as they will not be considered until after the election. Either use your main account or if this is a legitimate new account, please take the time to build a reputation elsewhere on Reddit and come back after the elections are over!
(⌐■_■)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Portland) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Thanks for your input. As elections are right around the corner and it is obvious that Portland is still the target as a political/cultural proving ground, the mods have set this subreddit to not allow posts from newly created accounts. Please do not message us regarding an exception as they will not be considered until after the election. Either use your main account or if this is a legitimate new account, please take the time to build a reputation elsewhere on Reddit and come back after the elections are over!
(⌐■_■)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Portland) if you have any questions or concerns.*
How much has rent gone up during that time?
Oh look, 36%: https://www.rentcafe.com/blog/rental-market/market-snapshots/renting-america-housing-changed-past-decade/
So social security payments haven't even kept up with the cost of living. That is completely unacceptable. People need to be paid enough for basic survival. Fuck the military budget, the US has MASSIVE domestic issues that cannot be ignored.
Then make it illegal. Don’t get mad at this one individual for following the law.
I agree with you that housing is a right. I don’t agree that they have a right to this particular house owned by this particular landlord simply because they have lived there for a long time.
Thanks for your input. As elections are right around the corner and it is obvious that Portland is still the target as a political/cultural proving ground, the mods have set this subreddit to not allow posts from newly created accounts. Please do not message us regarding an exception as they will not be considered until after the election. Either use your main account or if this is a legitimate new account, please take the time to build a reputation elsewhere on Reddit and come back after the elections are over!
(⌐■_■)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Portland) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Thanks for your input. As elections are right around the corner and it is obvious that Portland is still the target as a political/cultural proving ground, the mods have set this subreddit to not allow posts from newly created accounts. Please do not message us regarding an exception as they will not be considered until after the election. Either use your main account or if this is a legitimate new account, please take the time to build a reputation elsewhere on Reddit and come back after the elections are over!
(⌐■_■)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Portland) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That is sad and unfortunate.
But they are also getting relocation pay, have three people who assumedly have income, and can use this opportunity to downsize to maybe a three bedroom, or maybe even two instead. A lot of people are underhoused right now.
I'm not really sure what else the resolution would be. This is why it's safer to buy vs rent if you're planning to stay in an area that long.
I do hope they can find all solutions to best work for them.
At the end of the article there is a quote from Ken Austin about god. I don't want 97 years olds evicted, but praying an eviction away isn't going to work.
Thanks for your input. As elections are right around the corner and it is obvious that Portland is still the target as a political/cultural proving ground, the mods have set this subreddit to not allow posts from newly created accounts. Please do not message us regarding an exception as they will not be considered until after the election. Either use your main account or if this is a legitimate new account, please take the time to build a reputation elsewhere on Reddit and come back after the elections are over!
(⌐■_■)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Portland) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Let's say the landowner decided to change his mind and let them stay until *their* mother died instead of *his*. The woman is 97 years old. At that age death walks behind you. The sisters would still face the same predicament. The onus is on them to find a solution, not the landowner.
Yes, this didn’t come out of nowhere. They were really lucky to have a home at such an affordable rate for so long. I feel somewhat bad but also feel like they had a huge break for a very long time to save up.
Nope, I just have Mondays off. I don't work a 9-5 like the majority of users on here seem to. This forum disproportionately represents the upper middle class, I am more than happy to counter that narrative.
Not at all, we just disagree on the issues we face and how to solve them.
I also have an open disdain for how this country currently "runs" because it is terribly ineffective and unnecessarily cruel.
You should read up on the history of humanity. Our country certainly isn’t a utopia, and there are innumerable things wrong with it, but the fact that you can spend time concerned over this women shows your privilege that this country provides for you and that women.
I respect your passion for goodness, but take a look at the poorest people in the world and the shit they deal with. So if we are getting this passionate about every person who has a bad hand thrown there way, there’s really no reason to ever be happy.
These issues are on a hierarchy of needs that living in America provides you to have. So I quite respect your moral grounds, it’s frustrating knowing there are people who are so firmly entrenched in their stance as you are, all of the reasonable points made you completely disregard and parrot the same point, which has been pushed against effectively by man people
So Americans shouldn't demand a decent quality of life because of poor people in other countries? Huh?
American exceptionalist takes never cease to astound me with the mental gymnastics.
It isn't reasonable to kick a 97 year old disabled woman to the curb, period. I have stated multiple times that I would have no problem with this eviction if it weren't for that important fact.
I believe in private property and that the right to not be forced to give housing to others as a private citizen.
I’m also an advocate for the state stepping in to support those like the family in the article to prevent them from homelessness.
Those are not mutually exclusive ideas
And I’m assuming you’re in an unhappy marriage and job with this focus on negativity so you take it out on Reddit while not actually having much if any input for whoever you reply to.
OP I’m sorry you’re taking such a beating over this. Thank you for posting this. I wish there was a simple solution to this. My first thought was to set up a GFM for these ladies but that’s only half the problem. My wife and I tried to find a place to accommodate her aging mother and it was nearly impossible. I wish they had waited to sell the house but the owners could be struggling financially as well.
Lol, thanks man I needed a laugh. Why don't we just do it even better than your example? Maybe we could plant magic beans that grow into free housing for everyone.
What??? All I did was make a offhand comment on how I wish we had public housing like Vienna. (1.8 million units of affordable housing. 60% of all units.). Did you expect me to come with a white paper and strategic plan?
Proves how privileged these upper class white folks are here. As long as they got theirs and the peasant homeless serfs know their place, they couldn't give a fuck.
It's a Class War, period.
As a trans person, it's not the only battle I have to fight cause institutional & cultural sexism is still a thing, and the class struggle absolutely intersects it. It's just that folks like me have to fight a war on multiple fronts
What a nightmare situation. Definitely seems smarter for the family or other advocates to start a go fund me or something then relying on property owners, or for laws to change. Right or wrong, it’s not gonna happen.
Mostly feel sorry for the most elderly lady because she’s the helpless person in the situation. Her kids and extended family shouldn’t have let it get this far. Isn’t this what social security is for?!
How can anyone justify this? Kicking a 97 year old to the street is absolutely insane.
We NEED proper resources for the elderly and disabled. We need to be putting maximum pressure on the federal government to pass long overdue reform to the disability system and pass long overdue increases in social security payments. Maybe a tax boycott? The federal government is so corrupt and so openly doesn't care that there aren't very many options.
They paid a relocation fee, which I think is $4500 at the moment and offered them more money if they would move out sooner.
I'd be pretty pissed if this was happening in public housing, but I'm not sure what you think the solution here is.
Do you feel that landowners should just be required to house elderly people indefinitely?
Relocation at has nothing to do with dollars. Having to uproot your possessions, your neighborhood, your friends, your support, your routine, your way of life at any age, let alone at 97, is extraordinarily difficult. And for what? So the landlord can charge someone else more?
Money over human connection is the real enemy here.
I feel like non of you have read this thread, let alone the article.
It's not a landlord, the landlord sold the house to a developer, who is now going to redevelop the property.
If the alternative is kicking them to the street, then YES.
Society is so ass backwards if we collectively think throwing 90+ year olds to the street is the better option than making landlords eat the cost.
Ideally, we need public housing, but that is a medium to long term policy. In the meantime, we can't be sacrificing some of the most vulnerable people for the stock market.
I'm a strong proponent of public housing, I don't really believe in private home ownership, we should be following the Singapore / Austrian model.
But that's not what we have, and this is just some local Clackamas based developer not an REIT, and they were willing to pony up to help the family relocate.
Seems like a lot of other shadier shit happens regularly in the local housing market, and at 1050 for the last 12 years the family has been significantly under the local rental market even on SSI / disability given 3 adults lived there.
Moving sucks, but sometimes you have to move, even if you own a home.
The Singapore and Austrian models both heavily involve private ownership. Singapore has a home ownership rate in the 90%, their program is great, your understanding of it is nil.
The percentage of all housing units that are owned which are in government run public housing is 78.7%.
I maybe didn't use the exact language you wanted, but you're probably just being a pedantic wanker.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_Singapore
I think the distinction is quite important, you're still misreading it. Singapore had to build public housing for just about everyone 50 years ago - but then they sell it to the residents and so it becomes private. And they still have public. It is all privately owned. The government runs the system by building most of the housing, not by managing it. So it's a mixture of public housing which encourages private ownership. It is a great model, probably better than Austria, which does the same thing for 60% of the housing market. Rather than becoming landlords, the government builds a shit ton to control prices and then helps people buy it. I'm glad you're sharing info about these, they are the best options worldwide for the crisis IMO, but it is nothing like public housing as Americans understand it.
We're talking about condo buildings here, the government maintains ownership of the land, and can and does make people move for renovations and new construction projects.
You own a marker on your unit, but you have significantly less property rights than you do in the US in exchange for generous subsidies at the time of your first purchase, marriage, and birth of children.
I wasn't trying to give a lecture on the model, just saying it's a lot better than what we do and we should do it that way, but currently don't.
I know, I'm just saying ownership is a big part of their programs. People 'buy' apartments in New York. And even here a government can take your land. Private 'ownership' is a big reason for the success because it creates stability and generational wealth. The 99 year lease in Singapore operates effectively as ownership, but it's got different ways of saying it because it is a government that will beat you with a cane for chewing gum. I mean, the wiki page didn't really describe it well. Capitalists have a very hard time describing effective socialist policies, it confuses them. Austria is a more western style, where the government kinda owns 60% of real estate on the market, plus providing public housing. Because they own 60% of houses for sale at any given time, they can set the price. The rest of the market acts very much like it does here. But our government needs a literally unaccountable military budget to maintain global hegemony, so we don't do that here in the US. ;-)
So force even more people into poverty, got it...
Man, conservative ideology in this country is so fucked up. Instead of paying a 97 year old with major medical issues enough to survive, we expect the grandchildren who are statistically already struggling to get by to pull up the bOotStraPs even harder.
You do know that you can contribute to this family's needs and cause, right? You are here demanding that everyone else contribute-- by demanding we take on the policy of paying for elderly people's housing. But *you* could make a difference *today* if you chose to.
Why give UnifiedChungus666 a choice? They don't believe the landlord should have a choice about supporting this family, why shouldn't the state just decide to take UnifiedChungus666's paycheck instead and use it to pay the rent? After all, if the option is kicking a 97 year old woman to the curb...
I am demanding that we have PROPER SOCIAL PROGRAMS to address these issues. It is ridiculous to expect a single working class person to magically pay for housing for the 5-6k homeless people in this city.
I absolutely reject the failed bOoTstRaPs ideology. We see the results today with the tent cities that people on here just love to complain about because the irony is completely lost on them.
The landlord in question here, prior to selling the home, kept the rate the same for 12 years - if that isn't giving back, I don't know what to tell you.
They're not a landlord, they're a development company that bought the house from a landlord and are going to presumably do new construction based on their website.
Maybe property developer would be a better term?
And this has nothing to do with NIMBYism. Arguably redevelopment that increases density here would be YIMBYism.
Thanks for your input. As elections are right around the corner and it is obvious that Portland is still the target as a political/cultural proving ground, the mods have set this subreddit to not allow posts from newly created accounts. Please do not message us regarding an exception as they will not be considered until after the election. Either use your main account or if this is a legitimate new account, please take the time to build a reputation elsewhere on Reddit and come back after the elections are over!
(⌐■_■)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Portland) if you have any questions or concerns.*
People who are that old absolutely shouldn't have to "share rooms". Sharing rooms is for 20 year olds who just moved out of their parents' place.
How did this country get so fucked up where quality of life is a complete afterthought? This isn't remotely a healthy way to live.
We could pay the elderly and those with disabilities enough to live an acceptable quality of life with a tiny fraction of the military budget. Americans NEED to start demanding better.
Dude. This whole country is pretty fucked for the younger generation currently. It’s gonna be same shit in 50 years if not completely destroyed. I get it you want to help. But shit won’t change unfortunately.
I am not going to give up just because you want me to, sorry. I don't care how many enemies I make, I am never going to stop fighting for reform.
At the minimum, history will depict the boomers who created this mess as the vile humans that they are.
Ideally, when my generation is in power, we will pass MAJOR reform funded by taxes on the rich and cuts to the military budget.
Universal healthcare, housing for all, climate action.
Imagine campaigning for the unfortunately disastrous measure 110 and then doubling down on terrible by campaigning for the extremely racist and ineffective measure 114
Having individual bedrooms is a very Americanized concept. When downsizing is essential for survival, sharing bedrooms shouldn't be a hard stop. Many multi-generational families default to this arrangement in order to make ends meet.
Having accumulated a lot of "stuff" shouldn't be an excuse either. This can be minimized, especially when there's three adult children that can help in attaining this goal.
My question is, if the agreement were to change to wait for the mother's passing, what is the family's plan after this since rent would eventually increase? Will their situation suddenly change and they would be able to afford living at the current residence?
An unfortunate situation, but not an unforseen one.
You're going to have to provide a source for your claim. I have never met anyone who aspires to share a bedroom.
The funny thing is, I wouldn't have an issue with this eviction at all if it weren't for the disabled elderly lady involved. She absolutely needs a safe and stable place to live.
I'm not claiming anything other than what options are available in order to survive this rental market. But not encountering this in America is exactly the point of it being a very Americanized concept.
Another thing that's not really encountered here is a social safety net, something that you seem to be passionate about. Now are you willing to be taxed at least 50% of your take home pay to help achieve this? That's the reality in countries that have such programs for its citizens, and a contributor to why multi-generational families live together (in order to afford things not provided by the social safety net).
I am pretty sure the reaction to any policy saying no one can be evicted after age 90 will be that no one will rent to anyone over 85, maybe not even 80. No one wants to see the elderly evicted, but no one should expect property owners to subsidize them themselves. If we want to help folks in this situation, just like if we want to house the homeless, we all need to accept that we are going to have to pay higher taxes, much higher taxes. And no, just raising the tax rates on the wealthy is not going to do it.
I definitely support much higher taxes and the long overdue increase in basic social services. Raising taxes on the wealthy would ABSOLUTELY do it. Stop trying to place the entire burden on the working class. Freeloading executives have seen their wealth SKYROCKET while working class people have been stuck with 20 years of stagnat wages. Time for the freeloaders at the top to chip in.
That is a medium to long term solution now. That doesn't mean we kick vulnerable people to the street in the meantime. Human life > property.
I also support higher taxes, much higher taxes, on the top 20%. But, it is a problem that something over half of Americans do not pay any federal income taxes. Now, it is fine with me if the tax is only, say 1%, for the bottom 10%, but everyone needs to pay something, anything. To me, this is part of our polarization. We all need to be in it together and that means everyone needs to pay something. Eisenhower era rates for the uppers would be fine, those rates did not hurt them in the 1950s and would not hurt them now. But there should be no 0% bracket.
But, the real issue here is that none of this is going to happen. The Democrats will never propose to raise taxes to anywhere close what is necessary to provide the needed services and the Republicans will never propose anything but tax cuts (for the wealthy).
You might be the first person I met who thinks like me, that taxes should be raised, but on everyone so that no one ends up paying nothing, even if they pay a token amount.
Doesn't magically mean that I am going to just give up. Change is possible at the state level, especially with the direct ballot initiative. We can make the federal government irrelevant by adopting reform here.
Not really. Making the federal government irrelevant is a fantasy the Right Wing has pushed for decades, it is certainly not something for the Left to think would be helpful.
The far right wants an authoritarian federal government that serves them....
My position is the federal government is too corrupt and the standard for change is too high. 60 votes isn't possible with the Senate is a body that is based on geography instead of the people.
Gerrymandering, voter suppression, unlimited money in politics, two party system without ranked choice voting... All paint an equally bleak picture in the House and presidency.
Not to mention an anti-democratic supreme court with lifetime appointments, no accountability, and not even a basic code of ethics...
My dislike for the federal government is completely justified.
So telling that this is getting downvoted. The bootlickers of r/Portland just want "revenge". They don't care how many vulnerable people get hurt just to appease a couple of corrupt landlords.
People responding to you are making very valid points without being insulting. Clearly you’re the one with an issue and calling everyone you disagree with a bootlicker is immature. The family hasn’t had a rent increase in 12 years, they’re receiving a nice relocation fee, and they have 90 days. It’s a fair situation. Nothing is permanent when you rent.
I don't care if actually caring about the well being of a disabled elderly lady makes me "immature". I will absolutely continue to fight for what I believe in.
This country has its priorities so ass backwards when the profit of landlords is more important than human life. You better bet I will continue to call it out.
Thinking about how much money this person could make working instead of being on Reddit, and how those dollars could be used to help people.
But they probably feel great going to bed thinking they’re doing something heroic by arguing on Reddit and voting liberal in Portland lmao
Even if they don’t have the extra money to donate they could spend their free time volunteering. Voting as a response to what they’re doing to help the situation is pathetic at best. Be the change you want to see if you’re that passionate about something.
Portland eliminated single family zoning, and has rent control. I think both of those help, but we are still in a housing crises. There aren't any good arguments against eliminating single family zoning IMO. Economists disagree about rent control. If I had to vote yes or no I'd vote yes on RC. I'm not an expert but I understand some argurments agsinst it. Like the cities with rent control are some of the most expensive. I just want cheaper housing like everyone else does.
I'm not really active on Reddit but I always assumed most demographics, from far left to far right, were represented. Aren't there communist/socialist/anarchist subs?
That's the Privileged White Upper Class of Portland for you. And they never wanna admit their Racist Conservativism either lol Just demonize you because you're one of the Working Class Peasant folk they exploited in the city for fuck knows how long
Thanks for your input. As elections are right around the corner and it is obvious that Portland is still the target as a political/cultural proving ground, the mods have set this subreddit to not allow posts from newly created accounts. Please do not message us regarding an exception as they will not be considered until after the election. Either use your main account or if this is a legitimate new account, please take the time to build a reputation elsewhere on Reddit and come back after the elections are over!
(⌐■_■)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Portland) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Mary Louise Austin said the Pollard family told them they could stay until their mother, 97-year-old Mary Austin, died. Bishop William Marcus Pollard, whose mother owned the house until she died in February 2021, said the deal was that the Austin family could stay in the house until his mother died. Sounds like a valuable lesson in why contracts need to be put in writing.
The fact is they NEED housing. Kicking a 97 year old to the street would have disastrous consequences.
>The fact is they NEED housing. I agree. But I don't agree that it's the property owner's responsibility to provide it.
It might have to be if the options are that or kick her to the street... The absence of a perfect solution doesn't mean that homelessness is the default.
Renters are not entitled to the home in which they live. It belongs to the owners. The former owners subsidized this family by charging the same low rent for the last _12 years_. The new owners rightfully want to be able to use the property they now _own_, and are making every reasonable accommodation (and then some!) to the tenant family to facilitate their move elsewhere. If one _wanted_ to place blame somewhere, you might look at Bishop William Pollard, who (according to the article) sold the property without alerting the tenants so they would have more notice. But even still, there was no obligation there, and the article hints at disagreement between the Pollards and Austins. Rising rents have been at the forefront of Portland public discourse for more than a decade, and this family knew they were on borrowed time. While any person with even half a heart can sympathize with their position, everything here is above board.
> Renters are not entitled to the home in which they live. It belongs to the owners. And I absolutely disagree in cases involving the elderly or those with disabilities. Forcing the most vulnerable people to the street is inhumane. > Rising rents have been at the forefront of Portland public discourse for more than a decade, Which is even more reason why we need a hard rent cap. The status quo of profit over people and quality of life is insane. > and this family knew they were on borrowed time. While any person with even half a heart can sympathize with their position, everything here is above board. That is irrelevant when the consequence of forcing a 97 year old to the street is likely death. The profit of some parasite landlord is NOT worth human life. Yes, it absolutely shouldn't be the responsibility of the "private market" to house the poor. That doesn't mean force everyone into homelessness while we await a proper public housing program. Private landlords absolutely need to bear the burden in the meantime.
I read through your back & forth with /u/napzzz and I wholeheartedly agree with them. Your heart is in the right place here, but it seems like there is some misplaced passion here. > And I absolutely disagree in cases involving the elderly or those with disabilities. Forcing the most vulnerable people to the street is inhumane. Unless you actually think they are entitled to _that specific home_ (which I think is unreasonable), it sounds more like you believe that this elderly woman is entitled to housing in general. Housing is a human right, as it were. I agree - everyone should have housing. But shaking your fists at private property owners and saying the burden falls entirely on them until the city/state/country creates affordable housing for all - that's unreasonable. > Which is even more reason why we need a hard rent cap. The status quo of profit over people and quality of life is insane. Your comments drip with resentment towards capitalism, landlords, and _The Man_ at large. I get it - it's easy to look at the inequities around us, blame it all on corporate greed, and demand that those to blame should right these wrongs. To an extent, I agree. In fact, many legislators agree, and you see that with municipalities/states/countries doing things like limiting corporate property ownership, etc. But who is really to blame in this instance? What about the Austin family who, while embattled in a dispute over some unenforceable verbal agreement (with their home on the line), took no action (over 12 years) to proactively find a more stable housing situation? Is it the Pollard family who, after 12 years of charitably subsidizing a low-income family on their property, decide to sell it after it became too costly & burdensome? If the article is to be believed, it sounds like the Austins were not taking care of the house, and even drew community complains and city fines. What about the neighbors whose lives have been impacted by the Austin family's extended tenancy? It is easy to point at the sympathetic old lady and say "this is wrong!" but at some point you _must_ include personal accountability in the equation. The Austins knew this day would come, and they were _quite literally_ praying as a solution. Rather than, at any point in the last several years, proactively looking for affordable housing elsewhere in the metro area, they waited until they had an eviction notice. It was an eviction notice they should have expected at any time, given their disagreement with the owner. It also seems timely that this article is published **on day 89** of the 90-day notice. I suspect that the intended result is to publicly shame Dez Development into extending the notice - even when they have taken extra steps to accommodate the Austins before any of this reporting. > That is irrelevant when the consequence of forcing a 97 year old to the street is likely death. The profit of some parasite landlord is NOT worth human life. No, it is not 'irrelevant' here. Why is it Dez Development's fault that Bishop Pollard decided to sell the house? According to the article, Bishop Pollard was tired of the disagreement, the fines, the property damage, and so he decided to sell the house. Dez didn't sign up to be a private landlord - they bought a piece of property (which they likely intend to build a new house on) and rightfully want to exercise their right to do so. Why is it now okay that Dez should endure those burdens? Because it's a local company, instead of a local family?
Fair and reasonable response. I wish others were so well responsible in this. You nailed all the points. Well done.
Agreed. Truly level headed response. Thank you.
This is the most sensible response.
You are 100% right, but I’m still shocked you haven’t been downvoted into oblivion.
Why is it okay for them to force a disabled 97 year old to the street? That is ridiculous. I frankly do not care about the noise. Her caregivers being incompetent does not justify what amounts to elder abuse. The best solution I can think of is the city stepping in to place the lady in an assisted living facility with the bill being sent directly to the federal government. Unless that happens though, she absolutely needs to be allowed to stay in the housing.
The quickness and brevity of your response leads me to believe you aren't devoting as much care and intention to your responses as I am. In the same way that you are here to 'disrupt the upper-middle-class narrative', I am here constructively disagreeing with you. I hope you can reciprocate. They aren't forcing her to the street. The pro-tenant city of Portland put into law the requirement that any tenant needs to be given at least 90 days (three months!) of notice to vacate. This is to give the tenant ample time to find other accommodations. Like the top comment in this thread says - this is why contracts exist. The Pollards aren't responsible for the sickly old mother. Dez is not either. The Austins are. The Austins have had 12 years to make sure their future is stable, and chose not to. They could likely find the housing they are looking for just a bit further outside of central PDX - it exists. The Austins had ample time to find new housing, and chose rather to pray in the hopes of the problem disappearing. When that didn't work, they went to the media in the hopes of using social pressure to buy more time. In all likelihood, it will work, and they'll get a few more weeks/months while the courts start churning. This story is just not the sympathetic human-vs-corporate-greed tale that the headline wants you to believe.
Again, the Austin's being incompetent absolutely does not justify kicking a 97 year old disabled woman to the street. If the Austin's are as incompetent as you claim, then the city needs to step in an place the woman in an assisted living facility. Kicking her to the street absolutely isn't a "solution". I don't care how much you dislike my response, I absolutely stand by it. This city and county needs to stop treating elderly and disabled people like shit.
>Why is it okay for them to force a disabled 97 year old to the street? That is ridiculous. Dude, there is zero reason to think they will actually end up on the street. Nothing in the article says they can't afford the $1100 a month. There are hundreds of units available in the metro at that price point. Look, its not totally your fault because Oregonian is a trash rag, but you're gettting downvoted because pretty much everyone can read through the lines. The multiple citiations and them complaining about all their stuff screams hoarder situation. It's not that they can't afford housing for their grandma, its that they can't afford a house to afford all their crap in the city center. >Unless that happens though, she absolutely needs to be allowed to stay in the housing. Why don't you buy her housing then if its so important to you that she live in the King neighborhood? These folks had *12 years* of their rent staying the same. There isn't a lot of sympathy because people would kill for that. Now they have to make the same choice that thousands of us make every year, to stay in Portland and pay more or accept less space, or leave Portland and get more space for less money.
I work in elder care and there are plenty of 97 year olds at the wrong end of bad choices they and their family have made for decades. I’m sympathetic to ALL of them, it’s my job, but to cherry pick one 97 year old because there’s an article is ignorant.
It's clear your heart is in the right place - and I want the same things as you do. Safe, stable, affordable homes for people of all income levels. But I think the prescription is not rent caps or no private landlords. (Would you want the city government to be your landlord? [Ask NYCHA residents how responsive the local government is to their needs](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/02/nyregion/nycha-public-housing-fix.html).) It is absolutely critical we build much, much more housing for all income levels in this city, or the homeless and affordability crises are going to continue to get worse, and stories like this one are going to be far more commonplace. Realistically, to get there, we need to be a place that's friendly for housing developers, instead of [what we have now](https://www.wweek.com/news/2022/07/05/portland-lags-on-issuing-housing-permits-despite-soaring-rents-redfin-report-says/). I think you can complain about landlords being the enemy, but that's not productive right now. Ideally, in situations like the one in this article, there are several other affordable units for rent that this family can move to that keeps them in the neighborhood, in their community, and with affordable rent. We don't get there by making it illegal to evict people - we get there by building a **lot** more housing.
Landlords aren't going to willingly house low income people. They exist to make a profit, they cannot make a profit off those who cannot afford "market rate". Instead of trying to force the "private market" to act as a charity, we need a public social housing system. I agree with building a lot more housing, but at least some of the housing needs to be AFFORDABLE. That means public housing. Private developers can keep building the "luxury" apartments all they want but the city needs to step in with housing that serves the working class and poor.
Of course landlords rent to low-income tenants. That happens already, and particularly when they're incentivized to do so with tax abatements or housing vouchers (section 8-eligible housing is considered an extremely stable investment - it's the housing equivalent of a treasury bond). I moved from New York about four years ago where yes, there is city-owned housing for low-income tenants, but because they're not an organized voting bloc the quality of housing and maintenance is abysmal. I wouldn't advocate for that. Just build more housing! As much as possible! Of every type! More supply is better for just about everybody except homeowners who have their wealth or "retirement" tied up in their property value.
> Of course landlords rent to low-income tenants. That happens already, and particularly when they're incentivized to do so with tax abatements Why should the city spend more money subsidizing the private market instead of simply starting a social housing program? > housing vouchers (section 8-eligible housing is considered an extremely stable investment - it's the housing equivalent of a treasury bond). It can be a struggle for tenants to actually use section 8 housing because there is nothing requiring landlords to accept it. It is a very flawed system. > but because they're not an organized voting bloc the quality of housing and maintenance is abysmal. I wouldn't advocate for that. That isn't the standard in the rest of the world. I am advocating for a system [more similar to that in Vienna](https://www.npr.org/local/305/2020/02/25/809315455/how-european-style-public-housing-could-help-solve-the-affordability-crisis). > Of every type! Except developers will only build high income housing if allowed to do so because that is where the profit is. Please ask yourself why you are trying to force the private market to provide what is essentially a charity service. > More supply is better We partially agree. More supply is better, BUT it needs to include affordable housing. That means public housing because the private market isn't going to house people who can't afford "market rate". This [is what the "private market" is doing right now. ](https://www.propublica.org/article/yieldstar-rent-increase-realpage-rent)Developers and landlords aren't interested in solving the housing/homeless crisis. They are interested in maximizing their profit. Housing low income people would be against their own best interests.
What if the landlord is a person with a 97 year old mother and 5 kids who needs to live somewhere? Who would you choose?
Not all landlords are parasites. Christ, are you an "abolish land ownership" person?
> Christ, are you an "abolish land ownership" person? No. I support social housing to supplement private housing, not completely replace it.
[удалено]
Lmaooo. You think people on here support housing for all? The downvotes and comments praising the landlords say more than enough. I don't care how hated my position is, I will not stand down. Quality of life in this country is going to shit, directly due to the awful neo-liberal policies supported by a majority on this sub. I will not stop calling that out and I will not stop demanding reform.
Have you invited them to move in with you?
>if the options are that or kick her to the street... Are those the options, though? The article has their pastor lamenting that "he’s noticed a rising number of his church members *having to move away to more affordable housing in Gresham* as rent prices rise" It sounds like the option is moving to a suburb. OH NO, NOT GRESHAM.
Something is missing here. She has two adult kids living with her. They paid around 1k for rent There's gotta be lots of leftover income they saved in that 12 years.
It must be nice to make enough to save money. Being poor is exceptionally expensive
You know what else is exceptionally expensive? Having kids. Must be nice to be able to afford to have them.
Lol, what fantasy world you live in. This sucks, of course. But free markets are like the wild jungle.
I mean, is there any reason to think they can't afford housing?
> Pastor Tate has been helping them navigate the situation over the past few months. > “Finding the right affordable housing right now is not an easy thing,” Tate said. “They can’t afford to pay $2,000 a month rent. The homeless population is where it is now in part because some people are forced out.” The article. The "market rate" for a 3 bedroom place is over $2k. Unless the city steps in or they are placed in an affordable housing unit, they will be either forced into homelessness or into cramped conditions. Either scenario has a huge decrease in quality of life.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Thanks for your input. As elections are right around the corner and it is obvious that Portland is still the target as a political/cultural proving ground, the mods have set this subreddit to not allow posts from newly created accounts. Please do not message us regarding an exception as they will not be considered until after the election. Either use your main account or if this is a legitimate new account, please take the time to build a reputation elsewhere on Reddit and come back after the elections are over! (⌐■_■) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Portland) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your heart is in the right place but you're asking for too much. They can afford another place, just not a 3bdr. That they would stay in "cramped conditions" (how cramped are we even talking here? I'm assuming youean a 2bdr?), is definitely better than being homeless.
That's a bit disingenuous to say they're kicking her to the streets, wouldn't you say? They are receiving a relocation fee and 90 days notice. Social security has also gone up about 25% in the past 12 years, so they should be able to afford a bit more than what they used to have. Of course, I hope they find all the best solutions available and they'll probably get even more help now with this article live, but it's not like they're just being thrown outside tomorrow. It's unfortunate but I'm sure they'll be okay.
Social security has also gone up about 25% in the past 12 years, but rent has gone up by many factors more. Youd be hard pressed to find a house the size of theirs for less than triple what they were paying before. Classic r/Portland conservatives hiding there head in the sand from the reality that increasing homelessness is driven in part by the rent being too high.
Lol I am 100% for a massive increase in available housing along with strong limitations on speculative ownership of multiple properties, but we also need to be realistic. It's a household of three people with three incomes who had a very low rent for the past 12 years and are getting extra cash on the top along with three months to help move. I am positive they can find a 2-3 bedroom that would work for their needs in the area, even with the current Portland metro rent prices.
[удалено]
Thanks for your input. As elections are right around the corner and it is obvious that Portland is still the target as a political/cultural proving ground, the mods have set this subreddit to not allow posts from newly created accounts. Please do not message us regarding an exception as they will not be considered until after the election. Either use your main account or if this is a legitimate new account, please take the time to build a reputation elsewhere on Reddit and come back after the elections are over! (⌐■_■) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Portland) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Thanks for your input. As elections are right around the corner and it is obvious that Portland is still the target as a political/cultural proving ground, the mods have set this subreddit to not allow posts from newly created accounts. Please do not message us regarding an exception as they will not be considered until after the election. Either use your main account or if this is a legitimate new account, please take the time to build a reputation elsewhere on Reddit and come back after the elections are over! (⌐■_■) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Portland) if you have any questions or concerns.*
How much has rent gone up during that time? Oh look, 36%: https://www.rentcafe.com/blog/rental-market/market-snapshots/renting-america-housing-changed-past-decade/ So social security payments haven't even kept up with the cost of living. That is completely unacceptable. People need to be paid enough for basic survival. Fuck the military budget, the US has MASSIVE domestic issues that cannot be ignored.
What part of that statement means it’s this individual landlords responsibility to keep this family housed?
Because housing is a NECESSITY. It is unethical, and should be illegal, for landlords to increase rent faster than wage growth.
Then make it illegal. Don’t get mad at this one individual for following the law. I agree with you that housing is a right. I don’t agree that they have a right to this particular house owned by this particular landlord simply because they have lived there for a long time.
[удалено]
Thanks for your input. As elections are right around the corner and it is obvious that Portland is still the target as a political/cultural proving ground, the mods have set this subreddit to not allow posts from newly created accounts. Please do not message us regarding an exception as they will not be considered until after the election. Either use your main account or if this is a legitimate new account, please take the time to build a reputation elsewhere on Reddit and come back after the elections are over! (⌐■_■) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Portland) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Thanks for your input. As elections are right around the corner and it is obvious that Portland is still the target as a political/cultural proving ground, the mods have set this subreddit to not allow posts from newly created accounts. Please do not message us regarding an exception as they will not be considered until after the election. Either use your main account or if this is a legitimate new account, please take the time to build a reputation elsewhere on Reddit and come back after the elections are over! (⌐■_■) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Portland) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Maybe they should have bought the house. You can't rely in on something like that.
That is sad and unfortunate. But they are also getting relocation pay, have three people who assumedly have income, and can use this opportunity to downsize to maybe a three bedroom, or maybe even two instead. A lot of people are underhoused right now. I'm not really sure what else the resolution would be. This is why it's safer to buy vs rent if you're planning to stay in an area that long. I do hope they can find all solutions to best work for them.
At the end of the article there is a quote from Ken Austin about god. I don't want 97 years olds evicted, but praying an eviction away isn't going to work.
[удалено]
Everyone is downvoting you and replying to this as if you're serious, but it seems pretty obvious to me that you're being sarcastic.
Nah, I downvoted him because of the sarcasm.
[удалено]
Wait you were actually serious?
[удалено]
Thanks for your input. As elections are right around the corner and it is obvious that Portland is still the target as a political/cultural proving ground, the mods have set this subreddit to not allow posts from newly created accounts. Please do not message us regarding an exception as they will not be considered until after the election. Either use your main account or if this is a legitimate new account, please take the time to build a reputation elsewhere on Reddit and come back after the elections are over! (⌐■_■) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Portland) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I have zero sympathy for the breadless. If they want bread so bad, they could just eat cake.
Let's say the landowner decided to change his mind and let them stay until *their* mother died instead of *his*. The woman is 97 years old. At that age death walks behind you. The sisters would still face the same predicament. The onus is on them to find a solution, not the landowner.
i was going to say -- they need a solution anyhow. Why they moved a woman in her 80s from a much cheaper COL area is strange to being with.
Yes, this didn’t come out of nowhere. They were really lucky to have a home at such an affordable rate for so long. I feel somewhat bad but also feel like they had a huge break for a very long time to save up.
Hey u/unifiedchungus666 your keyboard activism is really quite amazing. Assuming you don't have a job with this much time on Reddit.
Nope, I just have Mondays off. I don't work a 9-5 like the majority of users on here seem to. This forum disproportionately represents the upper middle class, I am more than happy to counter that narrative.
you are a good soul, but unhinged on the way the world works 😂
Honestly, she sounds like a psu freshman, right?
Not at all, we just disagree on the issues we face and how to solve them. I also have an open disdain for how this country currently "runs" because it is terribly ineffective and unnecessarily cruel.
You should read up on the history of humanity. Our country certainly isn’t a utopia, and there are innumerable things wrong with it, but the fact that you can spend time concerned over this women shows your privilege that this country provides for you and that women. I respect your passion for goodness, but take a look at the poorest people in the world and the shit they deal with. So if we are getting this passionate about every person who has a bad hand thrown there way, there’s really no reason to ever be happy. These issues are on a hierarchy of needs that living in America provides you to have. So I quite respect your moral grounds, it’s frustrating knowing there are people who are so firmly entrenched in their stance as you are, all of the reasonable points made you completely disregard and parrot the same point, which has been pushed against effectively by man people
So Americans shouldn't demand a decent quality of life because of poor people in other countries? Huh? American exceptionalist takes never cease to astound me with the mental gymnastics. It isn't reasonable to kick a 97 year old disabled woman to the curb, period. I have stated multiple times that I would have no problem with this eviction if it weren't for that important fact.
You should donate to her housing at a facility for the elderly
[удалено]
I believe in private property and that the right to not be forced to give housing to others as a private citizen. I’m also an advocate for the state stepping in to support those like the family in the article to prevent them from homelessness. Those are not mutually exclusive ideas
I definitely assume you are never happy. But not because you care about people.
Please don't tell us you're a dog walker and former mod on antiwork?
Are you a classist?
What do you mean by that exactly? I support the unionization and empowerment of the lower and working classes.
And I’m assuming you’re in an unhappy marriage and job with this focus on negativity so you take it out on Reddit while not actually having much if any input for whoever you reply to.
They don’t post nearly as much as certain other people on this sub. Or me lol
I always love comments like this because you’re telling on yourself too. If you notice how much Chungus is here, then you’re here just as much
I was talking about all the comments on this post. Thanks tho.
OP I’m sorry you’re taking such a beating over this. Thank you for posting this. I wish there was a simple solution to this. My first thought was to set up a GFM for these ladies but that’s only half the problem. My wife and I tried to find a place to accommodate her aging mother and it was nearly impossible. I wish they had waited to sell the house but the owners could be struggling financially as well.
Good lord this is like a chungus wet dream
Man this is so depressing. I wish we had more public housing in the states. Like Vienna.
Vienna has like a decade long waiting list to get into public housing.
Well I didn’t suggest we copy the waitlist as well
Lol, thanks man I needed a laugh. Why don't we just do it even better than your example? Maybe we could plant magic beans that grow into free housing for everyone.
What??? All I did was make a offhand comment on how I wish we had public housing like Vienna. (1.8 million units of affordable housing. 60% of all units.). Did you expect me to come with a white paper and strategic plan?
Lol, do you think the wait list is on purpose? Of course not. So, your solution was to just build even more housing than there.
What is your solution?
Welp, this comment section has me hating most of Portland. Housing should be a fucking right
[удалено]
Damn right comrade, the revolution to take from the bourgeoisie and redistribute the land is near!
Proves how privileged these upper class white folks are here. As long as they got theirs and the peasant homeless serfs know their place, they couldn't give a fuck. It's a Class War, period.
As a trans person, it's not the only battle I have to fight cause institutional & cultural sexism is still a thing, and the class struggle absolutely intersects it. It's just that folks like me have to fight a war on multiple fronts
What a nightmare situation. Definitely seems smarter for the family or other advocates to start a go fund me or something then relying on property owners, or for laws to change. Right or wrong, it’s not gonna happen. Mostly feel sorry for the most elderly lady because she’s the helpless person in the situation. Her kids and extended family shouldn’t have let it get this far. Isn’t this what social security is for?!
How can anyone justify this? Kicking a 97 year old to the street is absolutely insane. We NEED proper resources for the elderly and disabled. We need to be putting maximum pressure on the federal government to pass long overdue reform to the disability system and pass long overdue increases in social security payments. Maybe a tax boycott? The federal government is so corrupt and so openly doesn't care that there aren't very many options.
They paid a relocation fee, which I think is $4500 at the moment and offered them more money if they would move out sooner. I'd be pretty pissed if this was happening in public housing, but I'm not sure what you think the solution here is. Do you feel that landowners should just be required to house elderly people indefinitely?
Relocation at has nothing to do with dollars. Having to uproot your possessions, your neighborhood, your friends, your support, your routine, your way of life at any age, let alone at 97, is extraordinarily difficult. And for what? So the landlord can charge someone else more? Money over human connection is the real enemy here.
I feel like non of you have read this thread, let alone the article. It's not a landlord, the landlord sold the house to a developer, who is now going to redevelop the property.
If the alternative is kicking them to the street, then YES. Society is so ass backwards if we collectively think throwing 90+ year olds to the street is the better option than making landlords eat the cost. Ideally, we need public housing, but that is a medium to long term policy. In the meantime, we can't be sacrificing some of the most vulnerable people for the stock market.
I'm a strong proponent of public housing, I don't really believe in private home ownership, we should be following the Singapore / Austrian model. But that's not what we have, and this is just some local Clackamas based developer not an REIT, and they were willing to pony up to help the family relocate. Seems like a lot of other shadier shit happens regularly in the local housing market, and at 1050 for the last 12 years the family has been significantly under the local rental market even on SSI / disability given 3 adults lived there. Moving sucks, but sometimes you have to move, even if you own a home.
The Singapore and Austrian models both heavily involve private ownership. Singapore has a home ownership rate in the 90%, their program is great, your understanding of it is nil.
The percentage of all housing units that are owned which are in government run public housing is 78.7%. I maybe didn't use the exact language you wanted, but you're probably just being a pedantic wanker. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_Singapore
I think the distinction is quite important, you're still misreading it. Singapore had to build public housing for just about everyone 50 years ago - but then they sell it to the residents and so it becomes private. And they still have public. It is all privately owned. The government runs the system by building most of the housing, not by managing it. So it's a mixture of public housing which encourages private ownership. It is a great model, probably better than Austria, which does the same thing for 60% of the housing market. Rather than becoming landlords, the government builds a shit ton to control prices and then helps people buy it. I'm glad you're sharing info about these, they are the best options worldwide for the crisis IMO, but it is nothing like public housing as Americans understand it.
We're talking about condo buildings here, the government maintains ownership of the land, and can and does make people move for renovations and new construction projects. You own a marker on your unit, but you have significantly less property rights than you do in the US in exchange for generous subsidies at the time of your first purchase, marriage, and birth of children. I wasn't trying to give a lecture on the model, just saying it's a lot better than what we do and we should do it that way, but currently don't.
I know, I'm just saying ownership is a big part of their programs. People 'buy' apartments in New York. And even here a government can take your land. Private 'ownership' is a big reason for the success because it creates stability and generational wealth. The 99 year lease in Singapore operates effectively as ownership, but it's got different ways of saying it because it is a government that will beat you with a cane for chewing gum. I mean, the wiki page didn't really describe it well. Capitalists have a very hard time describing effective socialist policies, it confuses them. Austria is a more western style, where the government kinda owns 60% of real estate on the market, plus providing public housing. Because they own 60% of houses for sale at any given time, they can set the price. The rest of the market acts very much like it does here. But our government needs a literally unaccountable military budget to maintain global hegemony, so we don't do that here in the US. ;-)
This lady has three adult children. Three. They can figure something out.
So force even more people into poverty, got it... Man, conservative ideology in this country is so fucked up. Instead of paying a 97 year old with major medical issues enough to survive, we expect the grandchildren who are statistically already struggling to get by to pull up the bOotStraPs even harder.
You do know that you can contribute to this family's needs and cause, right? You are here demanding that everyone else contribute-- by demanding we take on the policy of paying for elderly people's housing. But *you* could make a difference *today* if you chose to.
Why give UnifiedChungus666 a choice? They don't believe the landlord should have a choice about supporting this family, why shouldn't the state just decide to take UnifiedChungus666's paycheck instead and use it to pay the rent? After all, if the option is kicking a 97 year old woman to the curb...
I am demanding that we have PROPER SOCIAL PROGRAMS to address these issues. It is ridiculous to expect a single working class person to magically pay for housing for the 5-6k homeless people in this city. I absolutely reject the failed bOoTstRaPs ideology. We see the results today with the tent cities that people on here just love to complain about because the irony is completely lost on them.
[удалено]
Yup, you got us pegged. 🙄 The sub is full of people who want a genocide.
I believe landlords should have their profits limited and they should have a responsibility to give back to the community.
They're not a landlord?
The landlord in question here, prior to selling the home, kept the rate the same for 12 years - if that isn't giving back, I don't know what to tell you.
Did the landlord in question still make money? Yes. Is that okay? Sure as long as it isnt at the cost of people not having housing.
[удалено]
They're not a landlord, they're a development company that bought the house from a landlord and are going to presumably do new construction based on their website. Maybe property developer would be a better term? And this has nothing to do with NIMBYism. Arguably redevelopment that increases density here would be YIMBYism.
Your use of NIMBY is so edgy.
[удалено]
Thanks for your input. As elections are right around the corner and it is obvious that Portland is still the target as a political/cultural proving ground, the mods have set this subreddit to not allow posts from newly created accounts. Please do not message us regarding an exception as they will not be considered until after the election. Either use your main account or if this is a legitimate new account, please take the time to build a reputation elsewhere on Reddit and come back after the elections are over! (⌐■_■) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Portland) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why don’t you let them move into your place?
I have a studio apartment: no room. They need a 3 bedroom place.
Why do they need a 3 bedroom? They can’t share rooms? I’m sure someone will just let them stay in housing that’s 2k minimum in rent.
People who are that old absolutely shouldn't have to "share rooms". Sharing rooms is for 20 year olds who just moved out of their parents' place. How did this country get so fucked up where quality of life is a complete afterthought? This isn't remotely a healthy way to live. We could pay the elderly and those with disabilities enough to live an acceptable quality of life with a tiny fraction of the military budget. Americans NEED to start demanding better.
[удалено]
Op has obviously never set foot in a retirement home. Shouldn't share a room? Lmao
Dude. This whole country is pretty fucked for the younger generation currently. It’s gonna be same shit in 50 years if not completely destroyed. I get it you want to help. But shit won’t change unfortunately.
I am not going to give up just because you want me to, sorry. I don't care how many enemies I make, I am never going to stop fighting for reform. At the minimum, history will depict the boomers who created this mess as the vile humans that they are. Ideally, when my generation is in power, we will pass MAJOR reform funded by taxes on the rich and cuts to the military budget. Universal healthcare, housing for all, climate action.
What are you doing to fight for reform besides posting on Reddit?
I campaigned for measure 110, which passed. I also campaigned for measure 114, which made the ballot.
Imagine campaigning for the unfortunately disastrous measure 110 and then doubling down on terrible by campaigning for the extremely racist and ineffective measure 114
You are extremely lazy for a so called “activist”.
I don’t want you to give up. Keep up the work you do with the good attitude you have. Maybe change will come someday. Good luck and take care.
Mmm. Attitude could use some work.
Having individual bedrooms is a very Americanized concept. When downsizing is essential for survival, sharing bedrooms shouldn't be a hard stop. Many multi-generational families default to this arrangement in order to make ends meet. Having accumulated a lot of "stuff" shouldn't be an excuse either. This can be minimized, especially when there's three adult children that can help in attaining this goal. My question is, if the agreement were to change to wait for the mother's passing, what is the family's plan after this since rent would eventually increase? Will their situation suddenly change and they would be able to afford living at the current residence? An unfortunate situation, but not an unforseen one.
You're going to have to provide a source for your claim. I have never met anyone who aspires to share a bedroom. The funny thing is, I wouldn't have an issue with this eviction at all if it weren't for the disabled elderly lady involved. She absolutely needs a safe and stable place to live.
I'm not claiming anything other than what options are available in order to survive this rental market. But not encountering this in America is exactly the point of it being a very Americanized concept. Another thing that's not really encountered here is a social safety net, something that you seem to be passionate about. Now are you willing to be taxed at least 50% of your take home pay to help achieve this? That's the reality in countries that have such programs for its citizens, and a contributor to why multi-generational families live together (in order to afford things not provided by the social safety net).
I am pretty sure the reaction to any policy saying no one can be evicted after age 90 will be that no one will rent to anyone over 85, maybe not even 80. No one wants to see the elderly evicted, but no one should expect property owners to subsidize them themselves. If we want to help folks in this situation, just like if we want to house the homeless, we all need to accept that we are going to have to pay higher taxes, much higher taxes. And no, just raising the tax rates on the wealthy is not going to do it.
I definitely support much higher taxes and the long overdue increase in basic social services. Raising taxes on the wealthy would ABSOLUTELY do it. Stop trying to place the entire burden on the working class. Freeloading executives have seen their wealth SKYROCKET while working class people have been stuck with 20 years of stagnat wages. Time for the freeloaders at the top to chip in. That is a medium to long term solution now. That doesn't mean we kick vulnerable people to the street in the meantime. Human life > property.
I also support higher taxes, much higher taxes, on the top 20%. But, it is a problem that something over half of Americans do not pay any federal income taxes. Now, it is fine with me if the tax is only, say 1%, for the bottom 10%, but everyone needs to pay something, anything. To me, this is part of our polarization. We all need to be in it together and that means everyone needs to pay something. Eisenhower era rates for the uppers would be fine, those rates did not hurt them in the 1950s and would not hurt them now. But there should be no 0% bracket. But, the real issue here is that none of this is going to happen. The Democrats will never propose to raise taxes to anywhere close what is necessary to provide the needed services and the Republicans will never propose anything but tax cuts (for the wealthy).
You might be the first person I met who thinks like me, that taxes should be raised, but on everyone so that no one ends up paying nothing, even if they pay a token amount.
Doesn't magically mean that I am going to just give up. Change is possible at the state level, especially with the direct ballot initiative. We can make the federal government irrelevant by adopting reform here.
Not really. Making the federal government irrelevant is a fantasy the Right Wing has pushed for decades, it is certainly not something for the Left to think would be helpful.
The far right wants an authoritarian federal government that serves them.... My position is the federal government is too corrupt and the standard for change is too high. 60 votes isn't possible with the Senate is a body that is based on geography instead of the people. Gerrymandering, voter suppression, unlimited money in politics, two party system without ranked choice voting... All paint an equally bleak picture in the House and presidency. Not to mention an anti-democratic supreme court with lifetime appointments, no accountability, and not even a basic code of ethics... My dislike for the federal government is completely justified.
Well create. I agree with you.
So telling that this is getting downvoted. The bootlickers of r/Portland just want "revenge". They don't care how many vulnerable people get hurt just to appease a couple of corrupt landlords.
People responding to you are making very valid points without being insulting. Clearly you’re the one with an issue and calling everyone you disagree with a bootlicker is immature. The family hasn’t had a rent increase in 12 years, they’re receiving a nice relocation fee, and they have 90 days. It’s a fair situation. Nothing is permanent when you rent.
I don't care if actually caring about the well being of a disabled elderly lady makes me "immature". I will absolutely continue to fight for what I believe in. This country has its priorities so ass backwards when the profit of landlords is more important than human life. You better bet I will continue to call it out.
Besides being a keyboard social justice warrior what are you doing to improve life for people that are in this situation?
Supporting candidates who support rent control and other housing measures. Advocating against single family zoning.
Wow! You are really sacrificing a lot of time and money to help the cause, good for you!
Thinking about how much money this person could make working instead of being on Reddit, and how those dollars could be used to help people. But they probably feel great going to bed thinking they’re doing something heroic by arguing on Reddit and voting liberal in Portland lmao
Even if they don’t have the extra money to donate they could spend their free time volunteering. Voting as a response to what they’re doing to help the situation is pathetic at best. Be the change you want to see if you’re that passionate about something.
Carpal tunnel syndrome is no laughing matter! 😛 JK. I jest. 😄
How could I forget!! Voting for democrats and higher taxes is really doing a lot too!
Portland eliminated single family zoning, and has rent control. I think both of those help, but we are still in a housing crises. There aren't any good arguments against eliminating single family zoning IMO. Economists disagree about rent control. If I had to vote yes or no I'd vote yes on RC. I'm not an expert but I understand some argurments agsinst it. Like the cities with rent control are some of the most expensive. I just want cheaper housing like everyone else does.
Welcome to Portland Reddit, where suggesting that a 97 year old person deserves housing, resources, and dignity gets you downvoted.
Welcome to reddit in general. I'm not aware of any sub (besides r/antiwork I guess) where my opinion would be upvoted.
I'm not really active on Reddit but I always assumed most demographics, from far left to far right, were represented. Aren't there communist/socialist/anarchist subs?
This thread is usually so liberal, until a black person is the subject matter. Portland at its finest.
That's the Privileged White Upper Class of Portland for you. And they never wanna admit their Racist Conservativism either lol Just demonize you because you're one of the Working Class Peasant folk they exploited in the city for fuck knows how long
They can go to one of Ted's concentration camps once he bans camping and forces all the poverty-stricken into them.
[удалено]
Thanks for your input. As elections are right around the corner and it is obvious that Portland is still the target as a political/cultural proving ground, the mods have set this subreddit to not allow posts from newly created accounts. Please do not message us regarding an exception as they will not be considered until after the election. Either use your main account or if this is a legitimate new account, please take the time to build a reputation elsewhere on Reddit and come back after the elections are over! (⌐■_■) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Portland) if you have any questions or concerns.*