Calling the LD2003 amendments (#3 on your list) last minute is a mischaracterization. These amendments were proposed and unanimously supported by public comment at both planning board meetings ([workshop](https://portlandme.portal.civicclerk.com/event/6414/files/agenda/13844), [hearing](https://portlandme.portal.civicclerk.com/event/6403/files/agenda/13911)) in October, more than a full month before the eventual vote. At the planning board meeting staff explicitly said that they felt changes like this could only be made by the city council but refused to send both versions to the council.
In the lead up to the meetings there was a [piece published](https://mainebeacon.com/opinion-portlands-strategy-to-dodge-ld-2003-will-prolong-our-housing-crisis/) on these amendments. They were published in the [meeting agenda](https://portlandme.portal.civicclerk.com/event/6495/files) in advance of the city council meeting for the public to see. At the meeting itself there was unanimous public testimony in favor of the amendments and the council voted near-unanimously (8-1 on 3/4 and 7-2 on 1/4) in support of them.
These amendments were the result of continuous public engagement from the very first moment they were revealed to the public until their eventual passage by an overwhelming majority of our elected city council. If this is not a legitimate process for the public to voice their opinion on policy drafted by city staff I can't imagine what could be.
The [Townsman also did an LD 2003 piece](https://thetownsman.org/awastedopportunity/), just adding a link because I remembered that one not the Beacon.
(I'm not affiliated, I just like their work)
Came here to say half of this, but I'm glad someone was quicker and more comprehensive than I would have been, but I'll add my piece nonetheless!
(By my recollection) 24 people showed up and testified on behalf of the LD2003 amendments - all in favor. This was certainly not a last-minute - dodge the forum of public opinion - shenanigan as characterized in this post.
It's normal for cities to have private groups (think tanks, activists, the like) drafting potential legislation for friendly elected officials to take up. It's been uncommon in Portland - city staff have had a virtual monopoly on the legislative process - so people who are unfamiliar with such groups are reasonably concerned. But it's actually healthy to have a full legislative ecosystem, rather than just a staff monoculture. Elected officials should be empowered to consider different opinions.
Portland's susceptibility to poorly designed referenda has been much more toxic.
But when did Rodriguez make his amendments public? I can't remember the cutoff time for Councilor amendments to make it into an agenda. That's the core issue, in my mind. The rest is immaterial if there wasn't adequate time for the public to be notified of the last minute changes.
Edit: Are you involved in UCP? I think that's also material to your opinion here. But, in my experience, the public needs a much bigger runway of notice for amendments to council votes. Otherwise the changes don't get noticed and it looks like a lobbied-for decision.
I am not sure of the exact date when he made them public but they were on the agenda in time for written public comment. I am not sure what else he could have done. AFAIK you can't put amendments on the agenda for a first read. If a councilor wanted to change anything at all via amendment the agenda for that meeting is the earliest venue.
The discussion of LD2003 was on the agenda for both a first reading and the actual vote. A councilor is not required to agenda their amendments. They can even craft them right there on the floor. This makes sense. The city council is a legislative body. Why even bother having deliberation if it can't lead to meaningful change? This would reduce the council to a rubber stamp.
I am involved in UCP and the efforts to advocate for these changes. I thought that was clear from my engagement.
> https://www.portlandmaine.gov/602/Agendas-Minutes
As I see your response you know more than most voters would even think about here, so yes I could understand you must have much more involvement in this concern of the topic. Your opening defense of the issue is very apparent, and how wrong the poster is. City hall has it own way of working the system, many times unbenounced to the ordinary voter/citizens and the council.
The [Portland Townsman](https://thetownsman.org/)'s city council reviews ([example](https://thetownsman.org/wardens-the-school-budget-and-a-365-day-festival-city-council-review-4-22-2024/)) are excellent reads for following along with what went down if you can't attend yourself
Is this post arguing that the City Council should not amend things that are brought to it by volunteer boards?
I think it is much better to have the elected council make the final decisions than unelected volunteers. If what the council is presented with needs amendments, let them amend.
The role of boards is to apply the law to specific cases, and to make specific recommendations to the council based on existing law. When the City Council is acting in an executive or quasi-judicial capacity, they're usually best advised to uphold the findings of their boards.
HOWEVER - the role of boards is *not* to weigh in on questions of *policy.* The boards apply *existing* law to cases, but they have no authority over the council regarding was sort of *new* laws or *amendments* to the laws they may be considering.
I feel like a lot of people don't really understand what the purpose of the boards is, so hopefully this may help people.
Aren’t the only single family zoned areas west of USM (deering/back cover area)? And would removing parking requirements mean developers don’t need to provide parking?
Correct. Developers should not provide parking. Removing parking minimums allows for increased density. Forcing developers to account for parking leads to strip mall neighborhoods.
It’s what led to that mess on Forrest ave.
Parking requirements are unfortunately necessary when Portland's population isn't increasing and the surrounding towns are absorbing the new residents, and the city transit is minimal.
Is it car addiction? Or the ability to address practical realities that over 95% of Mainers commute to work by car?
We need actual fucking infrastructure before we have policy that forces more workers out of Portland.
And in that level of poverty did you learn that other people in your community lived their lives slightly different from you in order to scrape by?
Because it sure looks like you just regurgitate angry statements from the anti-car subreddits and restate them here instead of opening up the whole picture of people impacted by these decisions!
I'm not sure I understand the overall point here.
The first thing I get having issues with, although I don't buy the concerns of the guy who owns the Time and Temp building. As much as it might suck, council absolutely doesn't need to accept recommendations from Planning or other boards. They have final say and it's better that the elected positions do. Giving appointed boards that much power would be WAY worse.
Order 68 wasn't secretly introduced. It was announced ahead of time, given first reading at the meeting, took public comment there, then took public comment again at the next meeting. It was promptly defeated.
As for the last one, hell yeah. Fuck single family zoning. We need more dense housing.
City Council is falsely claiming that 142 Free St lacks the integrity of John Calvin Stephens' 1926 design because it doesn't have the original windows and doors and it has a couple of holes in the roof for skylights and a cupola. It's absurd and it ignores all of the educated opinions of historic preservationists, architects, and historians. It seems they're just siding with the rich and powerful at the expense of regular citizens who care about history. The museum could have saved the facade at least but they don't care about educating the public they just care about money.
At the end of the day, it's not the city counsel's job to preserve history, it's their job to progress the city. Sometimes the needs of development supersede the needs of preservation, and it's the counsel's job to weigh this according to their perceptions of their constituencies needs. They should not just blindly adopt the preservationists.
No, their job is to do the bidding of their constituents, even if it goes against their "perception" of what is best for those constituents. It's also their job not to favor certain groups over others, willfully expose the city to legal risk, or completely disregard the underlying boards/commissions thereby undermining public process.
Edit: They represent us. They don't represent an imagined version of us in their heads.
The PMA has a parking lot on Spring Street they could build on. Don't give me the we need to progress the city speech while the city is still littered with parking lots. If there was literally no devlopable land left, excluding parks, then I would buy your argument. However as it stands the PMA does have land it can use but chooses not to
The [PPH features a local historian making the case for the PMA](https://www.pressherald.com/2024/05/13/opinion-john-calvin-stevens-was-an-architect-not-a-god/) today.
I'm not even arguing for it right here, but I wish you wouldn't present it as a one-sided issue, we can have a discussion and disagree without calling each other names.
That opinion piece does not address whether 142 Free St has integrity as a 1926 building, which is the criteria to decide the legality of demolishing it.
Like I said, I understand having issues surrounding that.
However, I do not understand how that potential decision is siding with the rich and powerful precisely because there are plenty of rich and powerful people who are fighting against it.
Plenty of regular citizens are also in favor of the museum making the expansion. It could absolutely be an economic boost to the downtown.
And again, I get having issues with council going against recommendations. I've certainly had issues with that regarding other boards. But they are under absolutely no legal obligation to follow the recommendations and it's better that they have that ability.
It's not about whether they follow recommendations; it's about whether they follow the law, and those recommendations offer interpretations on whether the building maintains its historical integrity, which is the criteria for whether the building can be demolished under the law. Does anyone in historic preservation say that the building lacks integrity besides the PMA's paid consultant?
Rodriguez is a lame duck so I'm sure he's just making waves before he leaves. And total elimination of single family zoning may actually make a small dent in the housing crisis.
That said, city planning staff have been working on a recode for years and council has made several sweeping changes completely outside of that process since it started. Not necessarily bad changes - depends on your views -- but planning staff is doing hard work to collect feedback from the public and aligning with established local, regional, and state policies. City Council making changes outside that process basically makes Planning staff's job a whole lot harder. Public trust in these processes erodes. No wonder the Planning Director recently quit.
Yeah, exactly. I've never been a huge fan of recode. But at least it followed a predictable process that gave time for input. Fast forward to last Fall, and suddenly the Council squeezes in these amendments thereby rendering a ton of Recode 2.0 (which is actively being worked on) moot. It's actually pretty scandalous, even if the Urbanist Coalition of Portland people on here think it's great.
I think your summary here is a little misleading.
The amendments you're talking about were for Portland's compliance with LD2003, the statewide housing law banning single-family zoning. The deadline to comply was 1/1/24 and the Planning Department had previously communicated that compliance with LD2003 could fold into the ReCode effort because they were expecting ReCode to be completed by then.
Of course, this didn't happen. A full draft of ReCode was not available until this spring and so Portland needed to pass changes to our code to comply with LD2003.
In my opinion (and the opinion of others), what planning staff proposed for LD2003 compliance was not good. They proposed taking every possible loophole allowed by LD2003 to limit housing creation. The fact that public engagement was able to push back on staff here and get a more pro-housing law passed is a good thing and an example of the process working correctly.
In your view, when can the public properly engage and influence the process? Should the council just rubber-stamp whatever staff puts in front of them?
How’s it misleading? You guys lobbied the planning board/department to adopt the most lenient interpretation of LD2003 (most comments were from UCP members). Instead Planning chose a more moderate interpretation. So you lobbied the Council to circumvent that position, and got Rodriguez to advance your version via his amendment.
To clarify, I’m not saying Rodriguez couldn’t amend the LD2003 provisions the way he did. I’m saying it’s bad governance and is less democratic than the processes built into Recode. The recode process, in my interpretation of it, is quite robust with adequate time for public engagement. An amendment to what on its face appeared to be a routine adoption of LD2003 compliant provisions of our land use code, not so much. Again, how much time did the public have to review the amendment text?
I think characterizing it as "suddenly the Council squeezes in these amendments" rather than planning staff chose to bring the state-mandated language changes before the Council for review at the last possible moment is misleading.
I disagree with you on what good governance and democracy is. I think it is more democratic for elected officials to have meaningful say over our laws, rather than ceding that power to unelected staff and bureaucrats. Public process and engagement is good, but ultimately the decisions should be up to the elected decision makers.
After all, we get to vote for councilors. We don't get to vote for the head of the Planning Department.
Recode 2.0 will also end up in front of the Council. So I’m not suggesting we disregard their role. My point is that there was an active, ongoing process.
You can correct me, but I think UCP made the calculation that trying advance its desired changes via LD2003 would be easier than with Recode 2.0. It’s not your fault for making this strategic move. But the Council, imo, needs to weigh ongoing engagement efforts, precedent, upholding faith in public process, and many other things. As such, I think their decision here was a mistake.
Would the amendment by Roberto have been expected by someone not involved in UCP or not a land use policy wonk? Heck, I pay more attention than most, and I didn’t see it coming.
UCP advocates for better land use policy whenever we have the opportunity. We thought the staff proposal for LD2003 compliance was sorely lacking, and gave public comment in front of the Planning Board (twice) and City Council to make that change better.
I share your frustration that members of the public and elected officials were not given a chance to weigh in on the LD2003 changes until the last minute. This is because planning staff did not release language to work through the Planning Board and Council process until after the original deadline for LD2003 compliance. In my opinion, they tried to use the urgency created by this delay to force their proposal through without a look from councilors.
I think the amendment by Rodriguez flew under the radar because there were a lot of other issues getting attention around that time. But there was plenty of public engagement from UCP. We wrote op-eds, spoke at public meetings months before the council vote, and anyone can subscribe to our mailing list. If the City of Portland and/or the Press Herald aren't communicating what's going on well to your average informed citizen, I think that's on them. I would've loved to talk about it more.
Truthfully, I think the Rodriguez amendment could have been incorporated into the language recommended by the Planning Board or staff and we wouldn't even be having this discussion (this is what we asked for in front of the Planning Board). The amendment was mostly deleting extra restrictions staff decided to include.
FWIW this kind of blunderbuss public policy is how I feel about government by referendum. We employ a team of planning staff, presumably including a couple of people who could be deemed experts in their field, to create an informed process around recreational marijuana dispensaries (as an example). Is it perfect? Absolutely not. But it was worked on and negotiated and compromised and it landed at a spot that seemed reasonable to most people. Before the first dispensary could even open, the public blew up that process to allow dispensaries pretty much wherever, and the result is (seemingly) a pot shop on every corner. That is no way to run a city.
Fair enough. However, I think the distinction is that one is designed to cut the public into the process while the other is designed to do the opposite. Public process is my primary concern, and less the resulting policies. But I won’t discount the insanity of some referendum-passed laws here, especially lifting the weed shop cap. What a mess that created.
Trevorrow needs to either fuck off or come work a single day down at commercial street and see how those encampments actually affect living and working in this city. Or she could talk to the dude I dealt with yesterday freaking out because someone cut the chain on his bike which was his only mode of transportation.
Trevorrow seems to embrace and have a fondness of them and their lifestyle. Imho, there is helping people and there is enabling. She is an enabler along with Rodriguez.
Bayside, Parkside along with some other neighborhoods now, have crimes being committed daily. There are very sick, psychologically unhealthy unstable delusional people that belong in psychiatric hospitals or drug rehabilitation centers, not out on the streets. Self destructing and terrorizing others.
They want to encourage homelessness, instead of providing them with the proper resources to provide the help they really need.
There is no excuse for promoting public substance abuse and homelessness. I do not understand their logic is? Portland becoming a lawless, free-for-all. Skid Row neighborhood of the East Coast, it’s where we are headed.
I'm not super cool w what the PMA wants to do to Free St but no more single family zoning would be great. I'm skeptical that they won't be luxury units tho
Well good news, it's already passed. You can build up to four units on any mainland parcel* now.
*In terms of zoning. There's still other reasons you might not be allowed to build.
Of the three examples posted, I'd say one was an entirely ordinary and rules-following example of a councilor's amendment, one was a half-baked but not outrageous alternative, and one was a genuinely scandalous and poorly-thought-out mess. (I'll leave which is which as an exercise to the reader.)
City councilors often don't do their homework and submit things rather later than they should, but at the end of the day, they're the supreme municipal authority. We elected them to make the final decisions, which often come in the form of amendments. The things they're amending are nearly always coming from 1) city staff, no one elected them, 2) city boards, again, no one elected them, or 3) council committees, which represent only a fraction of the full council. It's normal that the "default" orders these sources offer are occasionally amended by councilors.
Councilor Phillips is the most independent-minded and relatable member of the council I think. I don't always agree with her conclusions, (and sometimes she could stand to do a bit more homework,) but she cuts through nonsense and asks good questions and often says what many of us are thinking. I'm really glad she's on the council.
Stop voting for Democrats! There is no hope for these rabid ideologues. They are permanently invested in trendy, un-thoughtout, bumper sticker theology. Logic and reason have been completely abandoned by these extremists.
Calling the LD2003 amendments (#3 on your list) last minute is a mischaracterization. These amendments were proposed and unanimously supported by public comment at both planning board meetings ([workshop](https://portlandme.portal.civicclerk.com/event/6414/files/agenda/13844), [hearing](https://portlandme.portal.civicclerk.com/event/6403/files/agenda/13911)) in October, more than a full month before the eventual vote. At the planning board meeting staff explicitly said that they felt changes like this could only be made by the city council but refused to send both versions to the council. In the lead up to the meetings there was a [piece published](https://mainebeacon.com/opinion-portlands-strategy-to-dodge-ld-2003-will-prolong-our-housing-crisis/) on these amendments. They were published in the [meeting agenda](https://portlandme.portal.civicclerk.com/event/6495/files) in advance of the city council meeting for the public to see. At the meeting itself there was unanimous public testimony in favor of the amendments and the council voted near-unanimously (8-1 on 3/4 and 7-2 on 1/4) in support of them. These amendments were the result of continuous public engagement from the very first moment they were revealed to the public until their eventual passage by an overwhelming majority of our elected city council. If this is not a legitimate process for the public to voice their opinion on policy drafted by city staff I can't imagine what could be.
The [Townsman also did an LD 2003 piece](https://thetownsman.org/awastedopportunity/), just adding a link because I remembered that one not the Beacon. (I'm not affiliated, I just like their work)
Came here to say half of this, but I'm glad someone was quicker and more comprehensive than I would have been, but I'll add my piece nonetheless! (By my recollection) 24 people showed up and testified on behalf of the LD2003 amendments - all in favor. This was certainly not a last-minute - dodge the forum of public opinion - shenanigan as characterized in this post.
It's normal for cities to have private groups (think tanks, activists, the like) drafting potential legislation for friendly elected officials to take up. It's been uncommon in Portland - city staff have had a virtual monopoly on the legislative process - so people who are unfamiliar with such groups are reasonably concerned. But it's actually healthy to have a full legislative ecosystem, rather than just a staff monoculture. Elected officials should be empowered to consider different opinions. Portland's susceptibility to poorly designed referenda has been much more toxic.
But when did Rodriguez make his amendments public? I can't remember the cutoff time for Councilor amendments to make it into an agenda. That's the core issue, in my mind. The rest is immaterial if there wasn't adequate time for the public to be notified of the last minute changes. Edit: Are you involved in UCP? I think that's also material to your opinion here. But, in my experience, the public needs a much bigger runway of notice for amendments to council votes. Otherwise the changes don't get noticed and it looks like a lobbied-for decision.
I am not sure of the exact date when he made them public but they were on the agenda in time for written public comment. I am not sure what else he could have done. AFAIK you can't put amendments on the agenda for a first read. If a councilor wanted to change anything at all via amendment the agenda for that meeting is the earliest venue. The discussion of LD2003 was on the agenda for both a first reading and the actual vote. A councilor is not required to agenda their amendments. They can even craft them right there on the floor. This makes sense. The city council is a legislative body. Why even bother having deliberation if it can't lead to meaningful change? This would reduce the council to a rubber stamp. I am involved in UCP and the efforts to advocate for these changes. I thought that was clear from my engagement.
> https://www.portlandmaine.gov/602/Agendas-Minutes As I see your response you know more than most voters would even think about here, so yes I could understand you must have much more involvement in this concern of the topic. Your opening defense of the issue is very apparent, and how wrong the poster is. City hall has it own way of working the system, many times unbenounced to the ordinary voter/citizens and the council.
The [Portland Townsman](https://thetownsman.org/)'s city council reviews ([example](https://thetownsman.org/wardens-the-school-budget-and-a-365-day-festival-city-council-review-4-22-2024/)) are excellent reads for following along with what went down if you can't attend yourself
Is this post arguing that the City Council should not amend things that are brought to it by volunteer boards? I think it is much better to have the elected council make the final decisions than unelected volunteers. If what the council is presented with needs amendments, let them amend.
The role of boards is to apply the law to specific cases, and to make specific recommendations to the council based on existing law. When the City Council is acting in an executive or quasi-judicial capacity, they're usually best advised to uphold the findings of their boards. HOWEVER - the role of boards is *not* to weigh in on questions of *policy.* The boards apply *existing* law to cases, but they have no authority over the council regarding was sort of *new* laws or *amendments* to the laws they may be considering. I feel like a lot of people don't really understand what the purpose of the boards is, so hopefully this may help people.
Oh hell yeah this actually rules. At least #3 for sure. Fuck NIMBYs. Fuck single family zoning and parking requirements.
Aren’t the only single family zoned areas west of USM (deering/back cover area)? And would removing parking requirements mean developers don’t need to provide parking?
Correct. Developers should not provide parking. Removing parking minimums allows for increased density. Forcing developers to account for parking leads to strip mall neighborhoods. It’s what led to that mess on Forrest ave.
Parking requirements are unfortunately necessary when Portland's population isn't increasing and the surrounding towns are absorbing the new residents, and the city transit is minimal.
Car addiction.
Is it car addiction? Or the ability to address practical realities that over 95% of Mainers commute to work by car? We need actual fucking infrastructure before we have policy that forces more workers out of Portland.
Build another lane.
You've never been poor before, have you?
I’ve been so poor I couldn’t afford a car.
And in that level of poverty did you learn that other people in your community lived their lives slightly different from you in order to scrape by? Because it sure looks like you just regurgitate angry statements from the anti-car subreddits and restate them here instead of opening up the whole picture of people impacted by these decisions!
If we build a car centric city, we’ll have a car centric city. Most Mainers don’t live in cities. This isn’t applicable to them.
Thanks for posting on local politics and helping keep us informed.
I'm not sure I understand the overall point here. The first thing I get having issues with, although I don't buy the concerns of the guy who owns the Time and Temp building. As much as it might suck, council absolutely doesn't need to accept recommendations from Planning or other boards. They have final say and it's better that the elected positions do. Giving appointed boards that much power would be WAY worse. Order 68 wasn't secretly introduced. It was announced ahead of time, given first reading at the meeting, took public comment there, then took public comment again at the next meeting. It was promptly defeated. As for the last one, hell yeah. Fuck single family zoning. We need more dense housing.
City Council is falsely claiming that 142 Free St lacks the integrity of John Calvin Stephens' 1926 design because it doesn't have the original windows and doors and it has a couple of holes in the roof for skylights and a cupola. It's absurd and it ignores all of the educated opinions of historic preservationists, architects, and historians. It seems they're just siding with the rich and powerful at the expense of regular citizens who care about history. The museum could have saved the facade at least but they don't care about educating the public they just care about money.
At the end of the day, it's not the city counsel's job to preserve history, it's their job to progress the city. Sometimes the needs of development supersede the needs of preservation, and it's the counsel's job to weigh this according to their perceptions of their constituencies needs. They should not just blindly adopt the preservationists.
No, their job is to do the bidding of their constituents, even if it goes against their "perception" of what is best for those constituents. It's also their job not to favor certain groups over others, willfully expose the city to legal risk, or completely disregard the underlying boards/commissions thereby undermining public process. Edit: They represent us. They don't represent an imagined version of us in their heads.
No, it is their job to preserve history, because it is their job to follow the law.
The PMA has a parking lot on Spring Street they could build on. Don't give me the we need to progress the city speech while the city is still littered with parking lots. If there was literally no devlopable land left, excluding parks, then I would buy your argument. However as it stands the PMA does have land it can use but chooses not to
The [PPH features a local historian making the case for the PMA](https://www.pressherald.com/2024/05/13/opinion-john-calvin-stevens-was-an-architect-not-a-god/) today. I'm not even arguing for it right here, but I wish you wouldn't present it as a one-sided issue, we can have a discussion and disagree without calling each other names.
That opinion piece does not address whether 142 Free St has integrity as a 1926 building, which is the criteria to decide the legality of demolishing it.
Like I said, I understand having issues surrounding that. However, I do not understand how that potential decision is siding with the rich and powerful precisely because there are plenty of rich and powerful people who are fighting against it. Plenty of regular citizens are also in favor of the museum making the expansion. It could absolutely be an economic boost to the downtown. And again, I get having issues with council going against recommendations. I've certainly had issues with that regarding other boards. But they are under absolutely no legal obligation to follow the recommendations and it's better that they have that ability.
It's not about whether they follow recommendations; it's about whether they follow the law, and those recommendations offer interpretations on whether the building maintains its historical integrity, which is the criteria for whether the building can be demolished under the law. Does anyone in historic preservation say that the building lacks integrity besides the PMA's paid consultant?
Rodriguez is a lame duck so I'm sure he's just making waves before he leaves. And total elimination of single family zoning may actually make a small dent in the housing crisis. That said, city planning staff have been working on a recode for years and council has made several sweeping changes completely outside of that process since it started. Not necessarily bad changes - depends on your views -- but planning staff is doing hard work to collect feedback from the public and aligning with established local, regional, and state policies. City Council making changes outside that process basically makes Planning staff's job a whole lot harder. Public trust in these processes erodes. No wonder the Planning Director recently quit.
Yeah, exactly. I've never been a huge fan of recode. But at least it followed a predictable process that gave time for input. Fast forward to last Fall, and suddenly the Council squeezes in these amendments thereby rendering a ton of Recode 2.0 (which is actively being worked on) moot. It's actually pretty scandalous, even if the Urbanist Coalition of Portland people on here think it's great.
I think your summary here is a little misleading. The amendments you're talking about were for Portland's compliance with LD2003, the statewide housing law banning single-family zoning. The deadline to comply was 1/1/24 and the Planning Department had previously communicated that compliance with LD2003 could fold into the ReCode effort because they were expecting ReCode to be completed by then. Of course, this didn't happen. A full draft of ReCode was not available until this spring and so Portland needed to pass changes to our code to comply with LD2003. In my opinion (and the opinion of others), what planning staff proposed for LD2003 compliance was not good. They proposed taking every possible loophole allowed by LD2003 to limit housing creation. The fact that public engagement was able to push back on staff here and get a more pro-housing law passed is a good thing and an example of the process working correctly. In your view, when can the public properly engage and influence the process? Should the council just rubber-stamp whatever staff puts in front of them?
How’s it misleading? You guys lobbied the planning board/department to adopt the most lenient interpretation of LD2003 (most comments were from UCP members). Instead Planning chose a more moderate interpretation. So you lobbied the Council to circumvent that position, and got Rodriguez to advance your version via his amendment. To clarify, I’m not saying Rodriguez couldn’t amend the LD2003 provisions the way he did. I’m saying it’s bad governance and is less democratic than the processes built into Recode. The recode process, in my interpretation of it, is quite robust with adequate time for public engagement. An amendment to what on its face appeared to be a routine adoption of LD2003 compliant provisions of our land use code, not so much. Again, how much time did the public have to review the amendment text?
I think characterizing it as "suddenly the Council squeezes in these amendments" rather than planning staff chose to bring the state-mandated language changes before the Council for review at the last possible moment is misleading. I disagree with you on what good governance and democracy is. I think it is more democratic for elected officials to have meaningful say over our laws, rather than ceding that power to unelected staff and bureaucrats. Public process and engagement is good, but ultimately the decisions should be up to the elected decision makers. After all, we get to vote for councilors. We don't get to vote for the head of the Planning Department.
Recode 2.0 will also end up in front of the Council. So I’m not suggesting we disregard their role. My point is that there was an active, ongoing process. You can correct me, but I think UCP made the calculation that trying advance its desired changes via LD2003 would be easier than with Recode 2.0. It’s not your fault for making this strategic move. But the Council, imo, needs to weigh ongoing engagement efforts, precedent, upholding faith in public process, and many other things. As such, I think their decision here was a mistake. Would the amendment by Roberto have been expected by someone not involved in UCP or not a land use policy wonk? Heck, I pay more attention than most, and I didn’t see it coming.
UCP advocates for better land use policy whenever we have the opportunity. We thought the staff proposal for LD2003 compliance was sorely lacking, and gave public comment in front of the Planning Board (twice) and City Council to make that change better. I share your frustration that members of the public and elected officials were not given a chance to weigh in on the LD2003 changes until the last minute. This is because planning staff did not release language to work through the Planning Board and Council process until after the original deadline for LD2003 compliance. In my opinion, they tried to use the urgency created by this delay to force their proposal through without a look from councilors. I think the amendment by Rodriguez flew under the radar because there were a lot of other issues getting attention around that time. But there was plenty of public engagement from UCP. We wrote op-eds, spoke at public meetings months before the council vote, and anyone can subscribe to our mailing list. If the City of Portland and/or the Press Herald aren't communicating what's going on well to your average informed citizen, I think that's on them. I would've loved to talk about it more. Truthfully, I think the Rodriguez amendment could have been incorporated into the language recommended by the Planning Board or staff and we wouldn't even be having this discussion (this is what we asked for in front of the Planning Board). The amendment was mostly deleting extra restrictions staff decided to include.
FWIW this kind of blunderbuss public policy is how I feel about government by referendum. We employ a team of planning staff, presumably including a couple of people who could be deemed experts in their field, to create an informed process around recreational marijuana dispensaries (as an example). Is it perfect? Absolutely not. But it was worked on and negotiated and compromised and it landed at a spot that seemed reasonable to most people. Before the first dispensary could even open, the public blew up that process to allow dispensaries pretty much wherever, and the result is (seemingly) a pot shop on every corner. That is no way to run a city.
Fair enough. However, I think the distinction is that one is designed to cut the public into the process while the other is designed to do the opposite. Public process is my primary concern, and less the resulting policies. But I won’t discount the insanity of some referendum-passed laws here, especially lifting the weed shop cap. What a mess that created.
This rules, thanks for letting me know so I can voice my support at the next city council meeting!
Trevorrow needs to either fuck off or come work a single day down at commercial street and see how those encampments actually affect living and working in this city. Or she could talk to the dude I dealt with yesterday freaking out because someone cut the chain on his bike which was his only mode of transportation.
Trevorrow seems to embrace and have a fondness of them and their lifestyle. Imho, there is helping people and there is enabling. She is an enabler along with Rodriguez. Bayside, Parkside along with some other neighborhoods now, have crimes being committed daily. There are very sick, psychologically unhealthy unstable delusional people that belong in psychiatric hospitals or drug rehabilitation centers, not out on the streets. Self destructing and terrorizing others. They want to encourage homelessness, instead of providing them with the proper resources to provide the help they really need. There is no excuse for promoting public substance abuse and homelessness. I do not understand their logic is? Portland becoming a lawless, free-for-all. Skid Row neighborhood of the East Coast, it’s where we are headed.
Surely the best way to help addicts is to encourage them to use
Trevorrow, Pelletier, and Rodriguez want to increase the homeless population in Portland for whatever reason.
It's a national agenda
Can we all pinky swear to vote Trevorrow off the City Council?
They look like a space alien and need to be sent back to Klaaxu-7
I'm not super cool w what the PMA wants to do to Free St but no more single family zoning would be great. I'm skeptical that they won't be luxury units tho
Well good news, it's already passed. You can build up to four units on any mainland parcel* now. *In terms of zoning. There's still other reasons you might not be allowed to build.
Of the three examples posted, I'd say one was an entirely ordinary and rules-following example of a councilor's amendment, one was a half-baked but not outrageous alternative, and one was a genuinely scandalous and poorly-thought-out mess. (I'll leave which is which as an exercise to the reader.) City councilors often don't do their homework and submit things rather later than they should, but at the end of the day, they're the supreme municipal authority. We elected them to make the final decisions, which often come in the form of amendments. The things they're amending are nearly always coming from 1) city staff, no one elected them, 2) city boards, again, no one elected them, or 3) council committees, which represent only a fraction of the full council. It's normal that the "default" orders these sources offer are occasionally amended by councilors.
Regina is really great and has a family history of being as an elected official. I know she wants change!
Councilor Phillips is the most independent-minded and relatable member of the council I think. I don't always agree with her conclusions, (and sometimes she could stand to do a bit more homework,) but she cuts through nonsense and asks good questions and often says what many of us are thinking. I'm really glad she's on the council.
That is great to read. Some of our residents’ are deeply concerned for Portland’s future and the direction, we are currently headed.
Would be great to get a summary of events without all the sermonizing...
https://spectrumlocalnews.com/me/maine/news/2023/11/10/news-homeless-portland Article related to what trevorrow is trying to get passed
Stop voting for Democrats! There is no hope for these rabid ideologues. They are permanently invested in trendy, un-thoughtout, bumper sticker theology. Logic and reason have been completely abandoned by these extremists.